UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT   LOS  ANGELES 


_ 
METHODISM  AND  SLAVRY:          t 


WITH    OTHER    MATTERS    IN 


/CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  THE  NORTH  AND  THE 


REVIEW 


MANIFESTO    OF    THE    MAJORITY, 


IN    REPLY    TO 


THE  PROTEST  OF  THE  MINORITY,  OF  THE  LATE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF 
THE  METHODIST  E.  CHURCH,  IN  THE  CASE  OF  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


BY  H.  B.  BASGOM,  D.  D. 

;  N  T     OF     TRANSYLVANIA     UNIVERSITY, 


"  The  unjust  Judge  is  the  capital  remover  of  land-marks."    LORD  BACOW. 

"  There  is  no  medium  between  the  power  of  the  Law  and  the  arbitrary  power  of  men;  and  the  arbitrary 
power  of  men,  in  whatever  form,  is  despotism  "  BAXTER. 

"Arf  authentic  kind  of  falsehood,  that  with  authority  belies  our  good  name,  to  all  nations  and  posterity. 

If  the  substantial  subject  be  well  forged  out,  we  need  not  examine  the  sparks,  which  irregularly  fly 

from  it."  SIR  THOMAS  MOORE. 


FRANKFORT,  KY. 

HODGES,  TODD  &  PRUETT,  PRINTERS. 
1345 


9133      13 


Entered  according  to  an  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1845,  by  the  Author,  in  the  Clerk's  Office 
of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Kentucky. 


EEVIEW,  &c 


The  more  ostensible  merits  of  the  controversy,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  have 
received  a  degree  of  publicity,  through  the  medium  of  the  Press,  which  seems  to  super- 
cede  the  necessity  of  any  great  extent  or  minuteness  of  preliminary  statement,  in  order 
to  approach  the  subject  fairly  and  without  disadvantage,  in  an  attempt  to  understand  it 
and  estimate  its  merits,  whether  as  it  regards  the  parties  in  controversy,  or  the  Church 
at  large.  All  the  material  facts  and  principles,  involved  in  the  controversy,  pro  and 
con,  stand  out  with  sufficient  prominence,  in  the  Protest  of  the  Minority  and  Reply  of 
the  Majority ;  and  the  facts  and  reasonings,  or  rather  assumptions  and  conclusions  of 
these  Documents,  may  be  considered,  as  furnishing  the  proper  issue  between  the  parties, 
and  the  true  text  of  the  discussion,  upon  which  we  enter.  And  as  the  subject  of  sepa- 
ration, as  it  regards  the  North  and  South  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  turns  main- 
ly, upon  the  question  of  slavery,  not  as  connected  with  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  but 
in  its  broader  and  more  general  aspects,  I  shall  principally  confine  myself  to  the  appro- 
priate topics,  indicated  by  such  limitation.  Appeal  to  other  mutters,  such  as  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  kindred  developements,  will  be  resorted  to 
by  the  way,  as  legitimate  methods  of  proof  and  illustration,  in  relation  to  the  facts  and 
principles  involved  in  the  discussion.  Believing  that  a  careful  analysis  of  the  whole 
movement,  on  the  part  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
will  show  that  the  assault  upon  him,  was  but  a  masked  battery,  intended  to  conceal  the 
real  point  and  object  of  attack,  I  shall  rely  less  upon  the  extra-legal  proceedings  in  his 
case,  than  upon  other  aspects  and  relations,  in  which  the  subject  presents  itself.  In  the 
instance  of  the  struggle  alluded  to,  it  was  obviously,  on  the  part  of  the  North,  a  contest 
to  settle  a  principle  unknown  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Church,  and  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  was  made  the  occasion  and  pretext,  to  bring  the  matter  to  trial.  The 
prosecution  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  a  moot  case,  the  determination  of  which,  not  ac- 
cording to  law,  but  in  the  chancery  of  party  tactics,  was  to  lea'd  to  the  ulterior  results 
of  additional  legislative  action,  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  whole  course  of  the 
majority  shows  clearly,  that  they  did  not  consider  Bishop  Andrew's  connection  with 
slavery,  as  an  offence  in  the  judgment  of  law,  but  as  something  that  ought  to  be  an  of- 
fence. They  thought  it  fit  to  constitute  an  offence,  and  labored  long  and  hard  to  accom- 
plish it.  It  was  an  extra-legal  movement,  to  accomplish  a  purpose  unknown  to  the  law, 
and  an  act,  therefore,  the  manner  of  which  was  as  unlawful  as  the  matter.  It  was  seen 
and  felt,  that  no  statutable  process  could  be  sustained  against  the  Bishop,  and  hence  a 
resort  to  expost  facto  legislation,  and  by  consequence,  an  invasion  of  constitutional 
right.  In  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  we  have  a  judicial  sentence,  in  the  shape  of  a 
declaratory  judgment,  based  not  upon  law,  but  upon  opinion  over-riding  law — the  "sense" 
of  the  General  Conference,  as  to  what  law  ought  to  be — as  to  what  must  become  law, 
before  the  North  will  cease  to  agitate  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  add  to  existing  en- 
croachments, upon  the  rights  and  peace  of  the  South.  The  authority  of  the  General 
Conference  to  enquire  into  the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  deal  with  him  according 
to  law  and  rule,  no  one  questions  ;  it  was  the  undoubted  right  of  the  Conference.  But 


302551: 


when  a  lawful  authority,  proceeds  to  unlawful  demands  or  action,  and  by  means  equally 
unknown  to  Jaw  and  usage,  the  claim  of  authority,  by  the  trespass  upon  right,  is  vitia- 
ted, and  the  procedure  becomes  null  and  void;  and  this  we  conceive  to  have  been  the  case 
in  the  instance  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Not  only  was  Bishop  Andrew  arraigned,  but  under 
the  hallucination  of  the  absolutism  of  the  General  Conference,  the  law  itself  was  ar- 
raigned, and  apart  from  its  arbitrament,  the  judgment  of  a  majority  became  the  only 
rule  of  action  and  standard  of  righl.  We  propose  an  examination  of  the  subject,  hav- 
ing for  its  object,  a  simple  statement  of  the  reasons  and  facts,  which  compelled  the  South 
to  assume  the  position  and  take  the  stand  they  did,  with  regard  to  a  separation  of  the 
general  or  federal  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  in  order  to  avoid  the  more  serious  evil  of 
utter  division  and  disunion,  throughout  the  whole  Church.  We  may  have  conceived  of 
the  case  too  strongly,  and  whether  right  or  wrong,  in  our  convictions,  it  seems  proper 
that  our  conduct  and  the  motives  by  which  we  were  actuated,  should  be  presented  in 
their  true  light.  As  distinguished  northern  men,  are  as  far  from  agreeing  among  them- 
selves, as  the  North  and  the  South  are,  with  regard  to  the  real  character  of  their  own 
action,  we  ought  certainly  to  be  judged,  with  some  share  of  the  indulgence,  currently 
reciprocated  among  the  sub-divisions  of  the  Northern  party.  Drs.  Durbin,  Peck,  and 
Elliott,  in  the  Reply  to  the  Protest,  say  the  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  was  no  trial- 
was  not  judicial  in  any  sense — was  not  intended  or  thought  of  as  a  trial.  Dr.  Bond 
and  others,  say  this  is  all  a  mistake— an  utter  misconception  of  the  facts.  They  assure 
the  Church  and  the  world,  that  it  was  a  trial,  and  exhibits  all  the  essential  elements  of 
judicial  action.  A  third  party  make  it  a  mere  executive  "regulation."  The  Protest, 
written  before  the  light  of  these  contradictions  had  been  shed  upon  the  South,  assumes, 
that  to  charge  with  delinquency  and  institute  enquiry,  is  a  judicial  process,  inasmuch 
as  there  is  the  implication  of  jurisdiction,  law,  responsibility,  and  judgment,  and  re- 
gards the  procedure  as  extra-judicial,  because  the  whole  invoice  of  grievances,  was  un- 
known to  existing  law — designed  to  regulate  the  whole  subject  matter  of  complaint. 
The  Protest  was  presented  with  the  full  conviction,  that  under  semblance  of  conformity 
to  the  constitution  and  law,  an  unlawful  use  had  been  made  of  both,  to  accomplish 
what  was  not  contemplated  by  either.  The  General  Conference  of  1836  say,  in  their 
official  address,  in  allusion  to  the  subject  in  question,  "every  man  should  be  presumed 
to  be  innocent,  until  proved  guilty,  before  some  competent  tribunal."  Of  what  was 
Bishop  Andrew  found  guilty,  and  in  view  of  what  law?  The  only  law  which  couJd 
possibly  be  invoked  with  any  semblance  of  justice,  was  known  to  protect  him,  and  yet 
party  opinion  triumphs  over  law  and  justice,  and  like  the  irresolute  Pilate,  they  first 
declare  him  innocent,  and  then,  arraying  the  act  against  their  own  decision,  they  pro- 
ceed to  scourge  him.  In  comparing  the  law  and  the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew,  we  can 
find  no  adequate  cause  for  the  action  in  his  case.  We  believe  the  real  cause  lies  deeper 
nnd  dates  farther  back.  Why  was  law  declined,  and  opinion,  and  Northern  and  foreign 
popular  feeling  appealed  to,  against  Bishop  Andrew?  Having  a  law  on  slavery,  even 
the  non-prohibition  of  the  act  charged  as  an  offence,  rendered  it  lawful,  apart  from  the 
fact,  that  express  provision  of  law  covered  the  case.  The  Discipline  expressly  provides, 
that  where  circumstances  remove  a  case  from  within  the  province  of  the  general 
principle,  no  individual  shall  suffer  from  any  application  of  the  law.  In  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,  that  which  the  law  excepts  in  terms,  is  made  the  sum  of  his  offence. 
What  the  law  declines  exacting,  and  actually  dispenses  with,  is  made  the  sum  of  duty. 
We  would  not  arraign  motive,  and  can  readily  conceive  how  passion  may  be  excited 
into  sentiment,  and  aversion  roused  into  activity,  leading  to  the  most  unhappy  results, 
while  the  actors  are  unconscious  of  the  real  character  of  their  own  course  of  action,  nr 


5 

the  evils  they  inflict.  It  did  seem  to  us,  at  the  time,  and  subsequent  events  have  been 
but  too  well  calculated  to  confirm  the  impression,  that  hostility  to  the  South  was  the 
moral  type  of  the  whole  movement,  and  that  it  was  intended  to  teach  us  that  a  Northern 
altar  must  hereafter  sanctify  the  gifts  of  the  Church.  The  majority  could  not  consider 
the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew  as  morally  wrong,  for  they  not  only  allow,  but  expressly 
authorize  it,  in  the  case  of  his  scriptural  Peers — the  Eldership,  or  College  of  Presbyters. 
They  could  not  regard  his  conduct  as  officially  wrong,  for  they  publish  to  the  world,  that 
there  is  neither  prohibition  nor  requirement,  connected  with  the  office,  in  the  shape  of 
law,  and  hence  infer,  that  the  lex  non  scripta  of  Northern  prejudice,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  must  be  the  standard  of  judgment,  and  constitute  the  tenure,  by  which  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  are  hereafter  to  hold  office. 

But  further^:  the  abstract  principles  and  favorite  dogmas  of  abolitionism,  in  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  had  had  their  day  of  disturbing  notoriety,  and  were  regarded 
by  the  South,  as  nearly  defunct,  until  quickened  into  activity  and  dramatized,  by  the 
anti-slavery  party  of  the  late  General  Conference.  It  was  the  conviction  of  the  South, 
that  this  party,  dissatisfied  with  the  conservative  principles  upon  which  they  had  for- 
merly acted,  found  themselves,  as  a  body,  without  principles  upon  which  they  could  act 
as  they  wished,  and  it  became  necessary  that  they  should  adopt  new  ones.  It  is  not 
assumed,  that  there  was  any  formal  coalition  between  the  Abolition  and  anti-slavery 
parties  ;  it  is  believed  that  this  was  not  the  case.  But  there  was,  at  the  same  time,  a 
mingling  of  parties  for  specific  action — to  accomplish  given  purposes,  in  which  the  par- 
ties were  deeply  if  not  equally  interested.  The  policy  and  movements  of  the  old  con- 
servative party,  while  in  a  state  of  preparation  for  action,  during  the  early  part  of  tho 
Conference,  seem  to  have  performed  the  functions  of  a  kind  of  Lazaretto,  at  which  abo- 
litionism did  brief  quarantine,  and  was  then  accredited  as  ancient  Methodism,  at  least 
for  the  time,  and  so  far  as  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  concerned.  There  was  at 
least  a  spasm  of  harmony,  during  which  the  parties  were  one  in  aim  and  action.  Both 
united  in  declaring  that  an  offence  which  violated  no  law  of  God  or  man,  and  was  re- 
cognized by  both  as  consistent  with  Christian  and  ministerial  character.  Each  was 
prompt  in  claiming  for  the  General  Conference  absolute  control  over  both  the  formation 
and  the  execution  of  law.  They  acted  together  in  asserting  the  claim  of  jurisdiction 
pro  salute  animce,  without  license  of  law  or  sanction  of  precedent.  They  clung  to- 
gether and  fought  for  the  same  results,  under  every  change  of  colour,  until  their  pur- 
pose was  accomplished.  They  united  in  requiring  Bishop  Andrew  to  do  what  the  law 
of  the  Church  did  not  exact,  and  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  resided,  expressly 
forbid — in  other  words,  they  agreed  to  punish  the  Bishop  for  doing  what  the  law  of  the 
Church  allowed,  and  for  not  doing  what  the  law  of  the  State  prohibited.  We  bespeak 
the  patience  and  candor  of  the  reader.  The  freedom,  and  it  may  be  thought  boldness  of 
censure,  in  these  brief  preliminary  statements,  cannot  be  judged  of  fairly,  except  in  con- 
nection with  the  facts  and  evidence,  we  submit,  in  support  of  their  truth,  and  in  vindi- 
cation of  the  course  and  policy  of  the  South,  in  the  premises  of  this  unhappy  contro- 
versy. 

Intending  an  examination  of  all  the  principal  topics  in  controversy  between  the  North 
and  South  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  no  particular  analysis,  either  of  the  Pro- 
test or  the  Reply,  is  deemed  necessary,  except  as  we  proceed  in  order,  to  a  review  of  the 
whole  ground  occupied  by  both. 

The  first  general  topic  claiming  attention,  is  the  compromise  character  of  the  general 
law  of  slavery  in  the  Methodidist  Episcopal  Church  ;  its  assumption  by  the  South  in 
their  Protest,  and  its  denial  by  the  North,  in  their  Rejoinder.  To  prevent  misapprehen- 


6 

sion,  it  may  be  well  to  state  here,  and  once  for  all,  that  the  term  compromise  is  used  in 
the  Protest,  in  its  most  ordinary  popular  acceptation,  in  connection  with  legislation,  to 
denote  a  mutual  agreement  to  adjust  difficulties,  in  the  shape  of  a  legal  arrangement 
— some  general  rule  or  law,  upon  the  grounds  of  mutual  concession  and  forbearance,  by 
the  parties  legislating,  acting  as  the  authorized  representatives  of  the  more  primary 
parties,  immediately  interested.  Before  proceeding,  however,  I  must  ask  to  be  in- 
dulged, while  I  offer  some  preliminary  views  and  statements,  with  reference  1o  the  gen- 
eral subject,  and  my  connection  with  it,  without  which  I  cannot  be  properly  understood, 
either  by  my  friends  or  enemies.  Involved  in  this  controversy  somewhat  prominently, 
by  the  force  of  circumstances,  rather  than  any  voluntary  agency  of  my  own,  I  am  anx- 
ious to  place  it  in  the  power  of  both  my  friends  and  enemies,  to  judge  me  fairly,  and 
beyond  this,  I  have  nothing  to  invoke  or  deprecate  with  regard  to  either.  At  the  first 
session  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  after  the  division  of  the  old  Pioneer  Western  Confer- 
ence, I  saw  and  heard,  for  the  first  time,  that  extraordinary  man,  Bishop  Asbury,  who, 
in  an  elaborate  address  to  the  Conference,  on  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  glanced  at 
the  then  recent  session  of  the  first  Delegated  General  Conference,  May,  1812,  and 
spoke  of  the  advantages  likely  to  result,  and  enlarging  upon  the  various  interests  of  the 
Church,  East,  West,  North  and  South,  he  remarked,  that  in  all  these  sections  the  Meth- 
odists were  one — every  where  the  same  people ;  and  added,  that  at  one  time  he  and  his 
venerable  colleague,  Dr.  Coke,  had  greatly  feared,  that  in  this  country,  slavery  in  the 
South,  and  the  opposition  to  it  in  the  North,  would  divide  the  Church  ;  but  he  warmly 
congratulated  the  Conference,  that  the  evil  they  had  dreaded,  had  passed  away  ;  that  the 
North  and  South,  in  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences,  had,  by  mutual  concession  and 
forbearance,  settled  down  upon  common  ground,  and  had  agreed  to  be  governed  by  law 
— the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  in  all  they  said  or  did  on  this  dangerous  and  exciting 
subject.  "  Do  this,"  said  he,  in  tones  of  commanding  but  affectionate  authority,  "and 
you  will  save  the  master  and  slave,  the  bond  and  the  free,  the  North  and  the  South.'' 
The  impression  I  received  from  listening  to  this  address,  was  strengthened  and  render- 
ed indelible  by  a  private  discussion,  to  which  I  listened,  during  the  same  Conference,  in 
which  some  young  preachers  maintained,  in  opposition  to  Bishop  Asbury,  that  slavery 
in  every  shape,  and  all  slave  holders,  should  be  banished  from  the  Church  ;  and  the 
great  and  good  Samuel  Parker  advocated  the  necessity  of  a  compromise  course,  and  de- 
fended the  views  of  Bishop  Asbury,  in  his  address.  Apart  from  my  distinct  recollec- 
tion of  these  facts,  I  kept  a  kind  of  journal  record  at  the  time,  of  nearly  every  thing 
that  interested  me,  and  in  view  of  both,  I  make  this  statement,  as'substantially  correct. 
Before  this  I  had  vaguely  regarded  slavery,  in  all  its  possible  forms,  as  a  foul  blot  upon 
the  Christian  name,  and  the  remarks  of  Bishop  Asbury,  and  the  arguments  of  Parker, 
gave  me  the  first  distinct  impression — led  me  to  the  first  rational  enlarged  view  of  the 
subject  of  slavery,  in  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  had  ever  entertained, 
and  will  remain  with  me  to  the  close  of  life.  Three  years  after,  at  the  fourth  session 
of  the  Ohio  Conference,  Sept.  1815,  I  heard  Bishop  Asbury  preach  the  funeral  sermon 
of  Dr.  Coke,  and  in  enlarging  upon  the  Apostolic  zeal  and  extensive  usefulness  of  the 
Doctor,  as  an  "  American  Methodist  Bishop,"  he  alluded  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
Doctor's  usefulness  had  been  "curtailed  in  the  South, "in  his  own  phrase,  by  his  imprudent 
zeal  and  movements  in  reference  to  slavery.  "  We  thought,"  said  the  Bishop,  ••  we 
could  kill  the  monster  at  once,  but  the  laws  and  the  people  were  against  us,  and  we  had  to 
compromise  the  matter,  or  lose  the  South."  I  cannot  pretend  to  give  entire  the  precise 
language  of  the  Bishop,  but  such  was  the  substance — the  plain  import  of  what  he  said ; 
and  connected  as  it  was,  with  what  I  had  heard  him  say  before,  I  could  not  forget  it, 


7 

especially  as  my  admiration  of  the  man,  amounted  to  almost  idolatrous  veneration.  I 
was  perhaps  the  more  struck  with  the  Bishop's  remarks,  as  I  had  that  year  been 
preacher  in  charge  of  a  circuit  in  Virginia,  where  the  subject  had  necessarily  engaged 
my  attention.  There  are  those  living,  who  know  that  the  recollection  of  such  incidents 
would  be  likely  to  be  indelible  with  me,  from  the  fact,  that  at  this  Conference,  but  for 
the  stern  interposition  of  Bishop  Asbury,  my  unimportant  career  as  a  Methodist  travel- 
ing preacher,  would  probably  have  terminated.  Crushed  by  what  I  regarded  (right  or 
wrong)  as  the  unfeeling  scrutiny  of  the  Conference,  I  had  addressed  a  letter  of  withdraw- 
al to  the  Conference,  through  my  friend  Rev.  David  Young,  upon  the  reading  of  which, 
Bishop  Asbury  said  :  "Give  that  poor  boy  to  me,  I'll  take  him  and  be  responsible." 
Bishop  Asbury  thus  became  my  friend  and  protector,  at  a  time  when  I  greatly  needed 
both  ;  and  let  no  one  be  surprised  that  I  treasured  up  and  preserved,  what  others,  differ- 
ently circumstanced,  may  have  forgotten.  After  traveling  nearly  four  years  in  the  Ohio 
Conference,  I  was,  in  the  autumn  of  1816,  transferred  to  the  Tennessee  Conference,  of 
which  I  was  a  member  until  1821.  During  this  whole  period,  a  fierce  controversy  was 
raging  in  that  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  the  Abolitionists 
having  a  decided  majority.  The  course  and  practice  of  the  majority,  went  to  settle  the 
principle,  that  no  slave  holder,  whatever  might  be  the  law  of  the  State,  in  the  case,  or 
his  claims  in  other  respects,  should  be  received  into  the  traveling  connexion,  and  no 
preacher,  traveling  or  local,  admitted  to  ordination,  until  he  had  first  in  fact  emancipa- 
ted his  slaves.  The  minority  contended  that  such  a  course  was  inconsistent  with,  and 
in  violation  of,  the  rights  long  secured  to  slave  holders,  in  States  where  emancipation 
was  impracticable.  The  struggle  was  long  and  bitter,  continuing  from  year  to  year, 
and  at  the  Tennessee  Conference  in  1819,  the  minority,  acting  under  the  advice  of  Bish- 
ops McKendree  and  George,  protested  against  the  course  of  the  majority,  and  appealed 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1820.  Upon  the  presentation  of  the  Protest  in  Confer- 
ence, Bishop  McKendree  presiding,  admitted  it  to  record,  against  the  declared  will  of 
the  majority,  and  took  occasion  to  address  the  Conference  at  great  length,  on  the  course 
of  the  majority,  and  the  subject  of  slavery  in  general ;  and  as  the  interference  of  the 
Conference  with  the  subject,  had  excited  no  Htile  distrust  and  jealousy  in  the  public 
mind,  Bishop  McKendree  requested  that  he  might  be  heard  by  some  of  the  most  influen- 
tial citizens  of  Nashville,  in  which  the  Conference  sat;  and  at  his  request,  I  introduced 
into  the  Conference  the  Honorable  Felix  Grundy  and  Oliver  B.  Hays,  Esq.,  who  listen- 
ed to  the  address  of  Bishop  McKendree  with  intense  interest,  and  declared  to  the  Con- 
ference, that  according  to  the  address,  the  law  of  the  Church  was  not,  as  they  had  been 
led  to  suppose,  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the  State. 

In  this  address,  Bishop  McKendree  glanced  briefly,  but  clearly  at  the  whole  range  of  the 
legislation  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  took  great  pains  to  show  that 
while  the  Church  sought  to  remove  the  evil  of  slavery,  from  within  its  own  limits, 
where  it  could  be  done  consistently  with  the  laws  and  welfare  of  society,  it  did  not,  in 
any  instance,  abridge  the  rights  of  ministers  or  people,  where  law  and  the  convention- 
al understanding  and  interests  of  society  pursuant  to  them,  rendered  emancipation  im- 
practicable. He  reviewed,  in  a  summary  way,  the  various  and  often  conflicting  regula- 
tions of  the  Church  respecting  slavery,  from  the  early  days  of  Asbury  and  Coke,  down 
to  that  period,  and  showed  that  the  apparent  inconsistency,  on  the  part  of  the  Church, 
was  owing  to  alternate  party  ascendency,  as  it  regarded  the  North  and  the  South.  His 
whole  address  went  to  show,  and  he  repeatedly  affirmed  it,  that  the  question  was  one 
that  could  only  be  managed  by  concession  of  parties,  and  that  the  existing  laws  of  the 
Church,  were  the  result  of  such  mutual  concession,  and  that  at  the  General  Conference 


8 

of  1808,  they  had  solemnly  agreed  10  let  the  subject  alone,  in  General  Conference,  and 
allow  the  annual  Conferences  to  regulate  the  matter  within  their  own  limits.  He  stated 
he  had  hoped  that  this  act  of  compromise,  with  others,  and  the  final  action  in  1810, 
would  save  the  Church  from  any  serious  trouble,  but  he  saw  it  would  not,  and  declared 
his  purpose  to  propose  to  the  next  General  Conference,  to  deprive  the  annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  power  given  them  in  1808,  and  to  establish  one  uniform  law  to  govern  the 
whole  Church.  Accordingly,  he  and  Bishop  George,  privately  advised  the  minority  of 
the  Tennessee  Conference,  to  memorialize  the  General  Conference  to  that  effect.  Bishop 
George  addressed  the  Conference,  approving  the  views  of  Bishop  McKendree,  and  assur- 
ing us,  he  should  concur  with  him  in  reporting  the  unauthorized  proceedings  of  the 
Tennessee  Conference,  and  in  asking  the  General  Conference  to  repeal  the  law  of  1808. 

The  Memorial  of  the  minority,  praying  the  repeal  of  this  law,  as  advised  by  the 
Bishops,  together  with  their  representations,  led  to  a  discussion  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1820,  which  resulted  in  the  repeal  prayed  for.  In  the  final  conflict  between  the 
majority  and  minority  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  on  this  subject,  the  venerable  Phil' 
ip  Bruce  took  an  active  part,  and  fully  and  most  unequivocally  sustained  the  views  of 
the  Bishops  and  the  minority,  and  addressing  the  Conference,  by  request,  as  a  living 
witness  in  the  principal  transactions  alluded  to,  he  was  even  more  minute  and  exact 
than  Bishop  McKendree,  in  showing  that  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Church  had  been 
in  the  spirit  and  form  of  compromise,  and  that  if  this  compromise  was  departed  from, 
Methodism  must  die  in  the  South.  The  same  view  of  the  subject  was  avowed  and  ad- 
vocated by  the  never-to-be-forgotten  Valentine  Cooke,  who  was  present,  and  called  up- 
on for  his  opinions  and  testimony. 

Barnabas  Me  Henry,  of  whom  I  once  heard  Bishop  McKendree  say,  if  he  were  allow- 
ed to  choose  his  successor,  as  senior  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Me- 
Henry  would  be  the  man,  was  a  member  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  and  assumed  and 
argued  not  only  the  virtual  compromise  of  the  law  of  slavery,  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  portions  of  the  Church,  but  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  or  some  kindred 
adjustment,  to  prevent  division  and  ruin.  These  men  were  all  opposed  to  slavery,  and 
had  no  connection  with  it,  and  yet  they  unyieldingly  maintained  the  ground  assumed 
in  the  Protest,  on  this  subject.  It  is  proper  to  add,  that  Thomas  Logan  Douglas  was 
the  only  man  in  the  minority  of  the  Conference,  who  was  in  any  way  connected  with 
slavery.  The  minority  numbered  about  twenty  members  of  the  Conference,  and  being 
oppressed  and  trodden  down  in  the  struggle,  referred  to,  they  naturally  turned  to  men  of 
age,  wisdom  and  experience  in  the  Church,  for  counsel  and  direction,  and  especially  to 
ascertain  the  real  character  and  purposes  of  the  law  of  slavery,  and  more  particularly 
the  opinions  and  conventional  understanding,  in  which  it  had  originated;  and  being  one 
of  the  minority,  and  frequently  called  upon  to  act  as  one  of  its  organs,  I  was  necessarily 
led  to  a  somewhat  extended,  if  not  critical  acquaintance,  with  the  whole  subject  and 
controversy.  I  was  in  the  habit,  for  years,  of  consulting,  whenever  I  could  have  ac- 
cess to  them,  the  venerable  men  who  had  grown  up  with  American  Methodism,  and 
who  were  therefore  well  acquainted,  not  merely  with  the  facts,  but  with  the  reasons  of 
legislation  on  this  subject.  From  them  I  learned,  what  I  believe  to  be  the  true  history  of 
the  general  rule  on  slavery,  which  found  its  way  into  that  summary  code  of  morals, 
known  as  the  "  General  Rules"  of  Methodism,  without  the  sanction  of  a  General  Con- 
ference, being  introduced  by  Bishop  Asbury  and  his  council,  in  1788  or  '9,  and  first 
published  in  the  latter  year,  and  was  intended  as  a  response  of  the  Church  to  the  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  then  just  adopted,  for  the  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade ;  the  council  deeming  it  proper,  that  what  the  Constitution  looked  for- 


ward  to  prospectively,  should  be  at  once  fixed  upon  as  peremptorily  binding  upon  all  mem. 
bers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  hence  the  prohibition — "  buying  of  men, 
women,  or  children,  (usually  stolen  and  plundered  from  Africa,  and  brought  to 
this  country  for  the  purpose)  with  the  intention  to  enslave  them."  The  language  of 
Coke  and  Asbury,  in  their  notes  on  the  Discipline,  sustains  this  view  of  the  subject. 
Speaking  of  this  rule,  they  style  it,  "a  small  addition,  which  the  circumstances  of  the 
States  required, "evidently  alluding  to  the  recent  prospective  prohibition  of  the  slave 
trade  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

No  part  of  this  recital,  which  I  introduce  with  great  reluctance,  but  could  not  omit 
without  subjecting  my  motives  and  conduct  to  misconstruction,  is  intended  in  any  degree 
to  reflect  upon  the  character  or  piety  of  the  majority  of  the  Tennessee  Conference. 
The  most  of  the  men  who  took  par?  in  that  controversy,  are  now  in  their  graves,  and 
so  far  as  I  know,  no  cause  of  quarrel  exists  between  any  of  the  survivors.  I  will  only 
add  in  this  connection,  that  as  McKendree,  George,  Bruce,  and  Cooke,  had  frequent 
interviews  in  council,  with  the  minority,  my  recollections  may  have  confounded,  in 
some  instances,  what  they  stated  on  these  occasions,  with  their  statements  before  the 
Conference.  That  I  quote  their  opinions  correctly,  I  am  entirely  confident.  Beside 
my  general  connection  with  the  subject,  during  the  hotly  contested  struggle  in  the  Ten- 
nessee Conference,  I  was  a  member  of  the  committee  which  drafted  the  Protest,  and 
also  of  the  committee  which  drafted  the  memorial  to  the  General  Conference,  just  allu- 
ded to,  and  hence  it  was  the  more  necessary  I  should  acquaint  myself  with  all  the  sour- 
ces, and  avail  myself  of  all  means  of  information  in  my  power,  while  at  the  same  time, 
I  should  be  the  more  likely  to  recollect  and  preserve  the  information  I  had  obtained. 
And  accordingly,  I  have  in  my  possession  copies  of  the  Protest  and  Memorial,  numer- 
ous letters  received  during  the  contest  and  subsequently,  bearing  upon  it,  together  with 
other  papers  and  documents,  enabling  me  to  make  these  statements  with  the  perfect 
knowledge  that  they  are  substantially  correct,  and  entitled  to  the  confidence  of  all  con- 
cerned. In  this  way  I  imbibed  my  first  and  early  notions  of  the  compromise  character 
of  the  law  of  the  Church  on  slavery.  I  am  not  at  all  careful  or  tenacious  about  words 
or  phrases.  My  object  is  to  make  it  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  candid  and  well 
informed,  that  fur  the  last  thirty  years,  I  have  been  taught,  and  taught  too  by  the  ablest 
masters  in  our  common  Israel,  that  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject 
of  slavery,  but  especially  from  1800  to  1816,  originated  in  mutual  concession  and  com- 
promise, between  men  representing  the  Church,  North  and  South,  and  therefore,  that 
the  law  of  the  Church  is,  ipso  facto,  a  compromise,  as  assumed  in  the  Protest  of  the  Mi- 
nority at  the  late  General  Conference,  the  principles  and  the  positions  of  which,  it  is 
the  object  of  this  publication  to  defend.  If  I  am  in  error,  I  have  become  involved  in  it 
most  unintentionally,  and  without  any  personal  interest,  by  which  a  man  of  common 
sense  could  have  been  influenced,  during  any  part  of  the  thirty  three  years  to  which 
these  statements  refer,  and  all  my  convictions  assure  me,  if  I  am  in  error,  I  have  been 
misled  by  such  men  as  Bishops  Asbury,  McKendree — and  George,  Philip  Bruce,  Robert 
Clotid,  Barnabas  McHenry,  Valentine  Cooke,  Leroy  Cole,  John  Littlejohn,  William 
Burke,  Samuel  Parker,  William  Allgood,  John  McGee,  Thomas  L.  Douglass,  and  many 
others,  equally  entitled  to  credit,  with  whom  I  have  been  in  intimate  intercourse,  and 
whose  opinions  gave  character  to  my  own.  That  these  men  regarded  the  law  of  the 
Church  on  slavery,  as  something  very  different  from  a  "simple  decree"  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  as  the  result  of  vexed  and  protracted  deliberation,  at  different  times, 
terminating  finally,  in  a  compromise  of  conflicting  opinions,  in  the  shape  of  a  rule  or 
law,  is  a  matter  about  which  I  can  never  doubt,  because  in  every  instance  I  had  the  in- 


10 

formation  directly  from  themselves,  and  could  not  have  misunderstood  them.  By  tl.e 
part  I  took  in  advocacy  of  the  conservative  grounds  of  the  Discipline,  in  relation  to 
slavery,  from  1816  to  1821,  mixed  up,  occasionally,  with  other  incidental  matters,  my 
position  became  extremely  unpleasant,  and  at  two  different  times,  Bishop  McKendree 
proposed  to  relieve  me,  by  making  me  his  travelling  companion  in  his  annual  tour  of 
the  continent.  This  I  declined ;  but  in  1821,  requested  him  to  transfer  me  to  some 
other  Conference,  proposing  to  go  wherever  he  chose  to  send  me,  and  he  accordingly 
transferred  me  to  the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  stationed  me  in  Pittsburg,  assigning 
the  state  of  things  I  have  detailed,  as  the  reason  of  my  transfer.  During  the  whole 
period  of  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  I  was  confined  by  extreme  illness,  in  Wash- 
ington City,  and  toward  the  close  of  the  session,  Bishop  McKendree  visited  me,  and  in 
a  long  interview  with  him,  he  glanced  at  the  difficulties  in  which  I  had  been  involved 
in  the  Tennessee  Conference,  adverted  to  the  slavery  question,  expressed  his  conviction 
that  the  subject,  as  further  compromised  in  1816,  and  left  upon  the  common  ground  of 
that  arrangement,  by  depriving  the  annual  Conferences  of  ail  legislative  power  over  the 
subject  in  1820,  would  secure  the  peace  of  the  Church.  In  proof  of  this,  he  stated, 
that  the  subject  had  produced  very  little  excitement  at  the  General  Conference  then  in 
session,  and  he  trusted  the  question  was  conclusively  settled.  I  have  added  this  last 
item,  because  it  is  by  several  years  of  later  date,  and  tended  strongly  to  confirm  all  my 
previous  views  of  the  opinions  entertained  by  Bishop  McKendree,  on  this  subject.  I 
have  also  heard  Bishop  McKendree  state,  and  have  had  the  statement  from  others,  that 
at  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  or  perhaps  1812,  a  measure  was  brought  forward, 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  would  probably  have  carried,  had  he  not  declared  to  the 
Conference,  that  in  the  event  of  its  adoption,  he  could  not  attempt  to  administer  the  gov- 
ernment in  the  South  ;  when  it  was  abandoned.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  also,  and  within 
the  recollection  of  living  witnesses,  that  at  the  General  Conference  of  1796,  when  a 
motion  was  made  to  exclude  all  persons  from  the  Church  in  any  way  connected  with 
slavery,  McKendree,  Tolleson,  and  others,  resisted  it  with  the  most  unyielding  deter- 
mination, on  the  ground  that  the  act  would  exclude  Methodism  from  the  South.  In  a  let- 
ter before  me,  a  venerable  member  of  that  Conference,  and  who  goes  with  the  North  on 
the  subject  in  controversy,  says,  "the  motion  was  ably  debated  on  both  sides,  all,  I  think, 
agreeing  that  slavery  is  a  great  evil.  The  ground  taken  by  Wm.  McKendree  and  James 
Tolleson,  the  strongest  opposers  of  the  motion,  was  that  by  passing  it,  we  should  shut 
up  our  access,  not  only  to  the  slave  holder,  but  also  to  the  slave,  so  that  we  could  do 
them  no  good,  soul  or  body,  for  time  or  eternity.  Here  are  two  evils,  (it  was  urged  by 
McKendree  and  friends,)  and  we  ought,  (by  way  of  compromise,)  to  choose  the  least. 
The  motion  was  lost."  But  more  of  this  in  other  places.  I  have  introduced  at  some 
length,  and  at  the  hazard,  perhaps,  of  incurring  the  charge  of  egotism,  my  own  personal 
connection  with  this  controversy,  not  as  argument,  but  to  show  how,  as  a  Methodist 
Preacher,  every  way  unconnected  with  slavery,  I  was  led  to  imbibe  the  doctrines  and 
opinions  of  the  Protest  on  this  subject,  and  I  think  it  must  be  perceived  by  every  one, 
that  my  present  position  is  a  very  natural,  if  not  necessary  consequence  of  what  has 
gone  before.  I  repeat,  however,  that  to  place  it  in  the  power  of  others  to  do  me  justice, 
is  the  only  thing,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  about  which  I  am  at  all  solici- 
tous, and  in  order  to  this,  I  have,  perhaps,  already  said  enough,  and  it  may  be,  more 
than  was  necessary. 

It  has  always  been  understood  in  the  South,  that  in  all  the  conflicts  in  the  Church,  - 
respecting  slavery,  there  has  been  a  sufficient  number  in  the  General  Conferences,  ad- 
hering to  Northern  policy,  to  carry  any  measure  they  chose,  but  that  in  a  great  raaay 


11  >  ,.  i^ 

instances  at  least,  they  have  been  restrained  by  appeal  and  remonstrance,  from  the 
South,  and  have  compounded  and  compromised,  as  assumed  in  the  Protest,  and  as  we 
shall  proceed  further  to  prove.  Before  proceeding  further,  however,  it  may  be  proper 
to  state,  what  the  good  sense  of  the  reader  could  hardly  fail  to  suggest,  that  in  speaking 
of  the  North  and  South  in  this  controversy,  it  is  intended  not  to  speak  of  all  persons — 
the  entire  people  North  or  South— but  only  so  far  as  the  North  and  South  have  spoken 
out  and  acted  in  the  premises.  In  so  far  as  any  portion  of  the  people,  North  or  South, 
may  be  unrepresented  by  the  avowal  and  action  to  which  we  allude,  they  are  not  inclu- 
ded in  these  designations  ;  and  where  it  is  meant  to  include  them,  the  connection  will 
sufficiently  explain.  It  is  necessary  to  add,  too,  that  I  shall  use  the  term  abolition,  in 
the  plain,  obvious  and  general  sense,  in  which  I  have  always  understood  and  used  It,  to 
denote  any  interference  or  meddling  with  the  question  of  slavery,  contrary  to  the  inten- 
tion, and  beyond  the  provisions  of  law,  civil  and  ecclesiastical. — that  is,  the  law  of  the  land 
and  the  law  of  the  Church.  All  persons  so  acting,  I  regard  as  Abolitionists,  and  shall 
so  call  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  principles  and  actions  of  those  who  seek  the  re- 
moval or  regulation  of  slavery,  in  strict  and  respectful  accordance  with  law,  as  above, 
I  have  always  regarded  and  spoken  of  as  conservative  in  character  and  tendency,  and 
shall  do  so  in  this  discussion. 

In  an  approach  to  additional  sources  of  information — more  stictly  historical  evidence 
— especially  the  official  and  accredited  testimony  of  the  Church,  the  reader  need  not  be 
reminded,  that  the  history  of  the  controversy  in  question,  has  yet  to  be  written.  We 
have  little  else  than  scattered  elements— isolated  materials  and  fragmentary  notices, 
scattered  here  and  there  throughout  immense  masses  of  authorship  and  publication.  All 
is,  to  a  great  extent,  without  form  and  void,  and  a  brief  examination  of  the  general  sub- 
ject, is  impossible.  Facts  and  principles  may  be  condensed,  as  was  attempted  in  the 
Protest ;  but  proof  is  challenged,  and  must  be  furnished,  or  the  South  be  found  at  fault, 
in  the  controversy.  Our  appeal  is  to  the  truth  of  history  and  the  evidence  of  facts,  and 
both  must  be  met  and  set  aside  by  a  more  convincing  array  of  opposing  proofs,  before 
our  cause  is  discredited.  Any  amount  of  criticism  and  disparaging  remark,  may  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  particular  parts  and  aspects  of  the  subject,  without  in  any  way  af- 
fecting the  force  of  the  argument  attempted.  Had  it  been  practicable  to  discuss  the 
subject  fully  and  fairly  within  a  more  limited  compass,  it  would  have  been  greatly  pref- 
erable, not  only  in  the  way  of  saving  the  cost  of  no  little  labor  and  research,  but  also  in 
view  of  popular  general  impression.  We  found,  however,  that  an  extended  induction 
of  facts  and  particulars,  was  indispensable,  and  no  very  obvious  classification  of  them 
practicable,  without  much  more  time  than  we  have  been  able  to  devote  to  the  sub- 
ject- Beside,  the  subject  is  a  peculiar  and  intractable  one,  and  an  appeal  to  discur- 
sive methods  of  examination  appeared  unavoidable,  for  the  plain  reason  that  but  little 
can  be  known  of  the  real  character  of  law,  the  true  philosophy  of  legislation  in  any 
case,  without  some  adequate  knowledge  of  the  practical  reasons  and  circumstances,  in 
which  it  had  its  birth  ;  and  hence  the  course  we  have  been  compelled  to  adopt,  and  the 
impossibility  of  any  very  briefer  condensed  view  of  the  subject. 

I  have  always  been  taught,  that  the  compromise  character  of  the  law  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  was  clearly  inferable  from  the  history  of  its  legislation  on  the 
subject.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  impossible  for  any  one,  not  under  the  influence  of 
strong  prepossession,  to  look  at  the  ever  recurring  change  of  position,  purpose  and  poli- 
cy on  the  part  of  the  Church,  respecting  slavery  and  abolition— its  various,  and  often 
conflicting  rules  and  regulations,  at  different  times — its  frequent  suspension,  repeal  or 
modification  of  such  rules — the  constant  attempt  to  meet  the  exigency  of  circumstances 


12 


— its  unwillingness  to  hazard  the  issue  of  carrying  out  its  severer  acts  of  legislation — 
its  uniform  refusal,  for  sixty  years,  to  close  the  door  of  the  Church  against  slave  hold- 
ers, and  yet  irresolutely  attempting  all  the  time,  to  make  emancipation  a  condition  of 
membership  afterward,  when  it  was  perhaps  thought  the  terror  of  punishment,  combined 
with  other  causes,  might  operate  to  secure  submission.  I  repeat,  I  have  always  thought 
it  impossible  to  look  at  the  subject  in  these  aspects,  without  perceiving  that  the  Church, 
in  all  its  legislation,  has  felt  a  resort  to  concession  and  compromise,  indispensable  to  uni- 
ty and  success,  in  connection  with  the  North  and  the  South.  I  am  still  more  strongly 
than  ever  of  the  same  opinion,  and  consider  the  debates  and  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  even  the  Manifesto  of  the  Majority,  in  reply  to  the  Protest,  as  addition- 
al proof  of  the  assumption.  If  it  be  true,  as  distinctly  affirmed  by  Drs.  Durbin,  Peck, 
and  Elliott,  that  the  North  has  been  conceding  to  the  South  for  fifty  years— if  it  be  fur- 
ther true,  as  distinctly  admitted,  that  the  South  has  conceded  to  the  North,  although 
not,  if  we  choose  to  admit  what  they  assume,  to  the  same  extent — yet  as  both  parties 
have  felt  the  necessity,  and  acted  upon  the  principle  of  concession,  reciprocally  claimed, 
how  does  it  happen,  we  have  no  compromise  as  the  result  of  such  concession,  in  the 
legislation  that  followed?  legislation  and  its  judicial  construction  being  the  only  form 
in  which  the  parties  could  concede  1  Can  men  or  parties  concede  right  and  claim,  in 
legislative  or  judicial  intercourse,  and  meet  upon  common  ground,  not  the  choice  of 
either  party,  except  as  a  preferred  evil,  without  acting  upon  the  ground  of  compromise? 
If  this  be  possible,  by  whom  has  it  been  shown?  The  parties,  by  which  we  mean  pro 
and  con,  those  who  thought  and  felt  differently,  on  the  best  mode  of  treatment  and  rem- 
edy, as  it  regards  the  evil  of  slavery,  took  into  view  the  adverse  grounds  they  occu- 
pied, and  that  the  general  interests  might  prevail  over  the  lesser  and  conflicting  ones, 
they  agreed  to  meet  and  act  in  view  of  average  right  and  justice,  between  the  adverse 
claimants.  The  whole  drift,  both  of  the  language  and  logic  of  the  Protest,  goes  to 
show,  that  in  calling  the  law  of  slavery  a  compromise,  we  reasoned  from  the  concrete 
to  the  abstract,  knowing  as  we  did,  if  its  authors  could  be  believed,  that  it  had  its  ori- 
gin in  mutual  concession  and  forbearance.  As  it  originated  in  the  necessily  of  trying 
emergent  circumstances,  its  compromise  character  was  taken  for  granted,  inasmuch  as 
the  law  itself  became,  of  necessity,  the  abstraction  and  generalization  of  the  conflicting 
facts  and  interests,  difficulties  and  concessions,  connected  with  its  original  enactment, 
in  separate  parts,  at  different  times.  Any  tolerably  accurate  appreciation  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  parties,  must  furnish  satisfactory  proof  to  the  most  common  discernment, 
that  the  existing  law  of  the  Church  could  have  originated  in  no  other  way.  The  legis- 
lation on  slavery,  by  consent  of  parties,  took  circumstances  and  consequences  into  the 
account,  and  whatever  may  have  been  its  form,  as  each  party  yielded  in  some  things, 
and  refused  to  yield  in  others,  and  both  finally  met  in  the  adoption  of  the  same  general 
rules,  the  legislation  in  fact,  was  a  compromise.  It  is  admitted  that  the  language  of 
the  Protest  varies  from  the  common  phraseology  of  the  Church  on  the  subject,  and  we 
were  led  to  use  it,  because,  in  our  judgment,  the  crisis  which  gave  it  birth,  rendered  it 
necessary  that  the  principles  involved  should  be  more  clearly  defined,  and  better  under- 
derstood.  Should  it  turn  out  that  we  have  wronged  the  truth  of  history,  let  the  proper 
correction  be  applied.  It  is  confidently  believed,  however,  that  the  evidence  we  submit, 
in  support  of  the  Protest,  will  satisfy  the  discerning  and  unprejudiced,  that  no  novel 
principle,  assumption  or  speculation,  unknown  to  our  fathers  and  the  American  Meth- 
odism of  the  last  half  century,  can  bo  found  in  it.  The  very  first  minute,  rule  or  re;ri- 
lation,  the  first  act  of  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  by  the  infant  Conference  of 
lay  preachers,  in  1780,  is  both  in  language  and  temper,  a  compromise.  Great  as  the 


13 

evil  is  charged  to  be,  it  concedes  that  even  traveling  preachers  were  slave  holders,  and 
merely  requires  a  promise  of  emancipation  ;  and  with  regard  to  all  other  slave  holders  in 
the  Church,  the  Conference  simply  advises  them  to  free  their  slaves.  If  they  did  not  in- 
tend compromise,  in  view  of  the  civil  rights — the  interests  and  feelings  of  the  South — 
why  receive  slave  holders  at  all,  either  as  members,  or  as  local  or  traveling  preachers] 
In  the  instance  of  what  is  declared  to  be  crime,  by  every  law  of  Heaven,  man,  and  na- 
ture, why  merely  exact  promises,  and  advise,  instead  of  requiring  emancipation  before 
receiving  them  at  all?  If  in  the  loose,  extravagant  language  of  the  rule  of  1780,  slavery 
is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature — is  hurtful  to  society,  contrary  to  the  dic- 
tates of  conscience  and  pure  religion,  and  doing  to  others  what  we  would  not  they  should 
do  to  us,  that  is  a  criminal  and  ungodly  practice,  inhuman  and  unnatural  withal,  as  most 
expressly  affirmed,  what  must  be  thought  of  the  piety  and  usefulness  of  preachers  and 
people,  thus  living  in  open  and  declared  violation  of  the  laws  of  God,  man,  nature,  society, 
and  conscience,  as  well  as  the  precepts  of  pure  religion  and  social  justice  ?  What  must 
be  thought  of  law  makers  and  Church  rulers,  who  thus  denounce  practices  as  grossly  in- 
iquitous and  immoral,  while  no  actual  abandonment  of  the  evil  is  necessary,  either  to 
church  membership  or  ministerial  office1  The  persons  and  the  practice  are  both  placed 
under  the  angry  ban  of  the  Church,  and  yet  continued  in  connection  with  it,  as  if  it  was 
thought  necessary  to  baptize  the  evil,  in  order  that  the  means  of  its  extirpation  might 
be  brought  to  bear  the  more  effectually.  And  yet,  after  this  unmitigated  denunciation, 
when,  three  years  later,  the  subject  next  comes  up,  local  preachers  only  are  named,  and 
it  is  deemed  best  to  try  them  another  year,  to  see  whether,  after  four  years  advising, 
the  result  will  not  be  different,  and  if  not,  it  is  gravely  stated  it  may  (and  of  course 
may  not,  as  it  turned  out)  be  necessary  to  suspend  them.  Why  this  hesitation  and  de- 
lay? Was  it  or  not  seen  and  felt,  by  the  excellent  men  composing  these  early  Conferences, 
that  they  had  acted  prematurely,  and  that  they  could  not  carry  out  the  principles  and 
measures  they  had  avowed  and  adopted,  without  ruin  to  the  objects  and  mission  of 
Methodism  in  the  South  1  Unless  this  was  so,  why  is  an  evil  so  unmitigated,  so  ut- 
terly at  war  with  the  moral  order  of  Heaven  and  earth — so  inconsistent  with  any,  the 
least  degree  of  moral  uprightness,  borne  with  for  a  moment  1  And  especially  why  are 
persons  involved  in  it,  allowed  to  enter  the  Church,  and  even  the  ministry,  when  curse 
and  defilement  are  assumed  as  the  inevitable  consequence  !  Without  intended  compro- 
mise, how  can  we  reconcile  the  faith  and  practice  of  our  fathers  ?  In  1784,  at  the  reg- 
ular Conference,  the  local  preachers  in  Virginia,  holding  slaves,  are  allowed  another 
year  to  reflect  upon  the  matter;  that  is,  five  years  after  the  first  warning!  Does  this 
delay  betoken  compromise  or  not?  At  the  called  Christmas  Conference  of  the  same 
year,  we  have  a  series  of  enactments,  the  tone  of  which  is  equally  decided  as  to  the  mor- 
al wrong  of  slavery.  These  are  expressly  admitted  to  constitute  a  new  term  of  mem- 
bership, unknown  to  the  general  rules  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  came  in  with  the  new  organ- 
ization of  the  Church.  Still,  fearful  of  consequences,  the  law  is  suspended  before  it  is 
published,  and  slave  holders  have  another  year  for  reflection,  and  in  Virginia,  where 
the  Church  was  numerous  and  strong,  they  have  two  years  more,  extending  the  proba- 
tion in  Virginia  to  seven  years.  If  in  this  no  compromise  is  seen,  six  months  after  we 
have  a  further  and  more  formal  suspension  of  all  the  rules  on  slavery,  until  the  next 
Conference,  when  it  is  declared  the  rules  shall  be  enforced.  This,  however,  was  not 
done,  and  during  twelve  long  years,  the  suspension  continues,  and  the  whole  subject  is 
allowed  to  sleep,  and  confessedly,  because  of  the  great  evil  done  in  the  South  by  its  agi- 
tation. In  1796  we  have  a  new  code  or  set  of  rules,  but  obviously  of  the  same  compro- 
mise character  with  former  ones,  as  explained  by  the  practice  of  our  rulers.  Slave 


14 

holders  are  still  admitted  to  ministerial  order  and  official  station,  upon  security  given 
that  they  will  emancipate  in  future.  The  laws  of  the  State,  and  the  circumstances  of 
individual  cases,  are  to  be  consulted  and  deferred  to  by  presiding  elders  and  preachers 
in  charge,  in  judging  of  the  nature  of  the  security  required.  And,  as  if  doubtful 
whether  this  was  not  too  stringent,  upon  the  remonstrances  of  McKendree  and  others, 
from  the  South,  they  compromised  the  whole  matter  further,  by  authorizing  the  yearly 
Conferences  to  make  whatever  regulations  they  judge  proper,  respecting  the  admission 
of  slave  holders  to  official  stations  in  the  Church.  Masters  are  allowed  to  hold  slaves 
for  a  term  of  years,  to  remunerate  themselves.  Preachers  and  people  are  called  upon 
for  information  and  opinions  on  the  subject,  to  be  sent  up  to  the  next  Conference,  that 
the  preachers,  instead  of  their  hitherto  imperfect  knowledge,  and  conflicting  and  versa- 
tile opinions  and  purposes,  may  have  full  light  upon  the  subject.  Such  are  some  of  the 
difficulties  and  details  of  the  still  incipient,  unsettled  compromise  of  the  Protest.  In 
1800  there  is  still  further  modification  and  compromise.  A  traveling  preacher  is  allow- 
ed to  hold  slaves,  where  emancipation  is  not  practicable,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of 
the  State  in  which  he  lives  ;  and  to  get  at  the  subject  more  directly,  without  coming  in 
conflict  with  the  civil  authoritities,  it  is  found  necessary  to  interfere  with  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  States  in  which  slavery  exists.  The  Annual  Conferences  are  instructed  to 
memorialize  the  Southern  Legislatures,  and  urge  them  to  pass  "general  emancipation" 
laws.  Committees  were  to  be  appointed,  too,  to  aid  the  traveling  preachers  in  "  this 
blessed  work."  An  application  of  this  kind,  to  the  Legislature  of  Georgia,  gave  birth, 
in  1800,  to  the  celebrated  law  of  that  State,  prohibiting  emancipation  in  any  form,  ex- 
cept by  Legislative  enactment.  The  application  was  deemed  obtrusive  and  dangerous, 
and  the  Church,  in  this  way,  has  prevented  the  emancipation  of  thousands  of  slaves  in 
Georgia,  as  well  as  other  Southern  States,  by  provoking  State  legislatiun,  which  render- 
ed it  entirely  impracticable.  While  this  business  of  petitioning  Legislatures,  and  re- 
monstrating with  them,  was  going  on  in  1800,  it  was  suddenly  found  necessary  to  com- 
promise this  matter  too,  or  give  up  the  South,  and  the  plan  of  petitioning  was  abandon- 
ed accordingly,  and  atonement  was  offeredTor  the  indiscretion,  in  the  shape  of  apologies 
and  explanations  in  behalf  of  the  Church,  especially  after  a  Southern  Grand  Jury  had, 
upon  presentment  for  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  State,  found  a  true  bill  against  one 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  Dr.  Coke,  on  account  of  the  active  part  he  had  taken,  in 
the  movement  now  referred  to. 

In  1804,  the  compromise  character  of  the  law  of  the  Church  respecting  slavery,  be- 
gan to  assume  a  more  distinctive  form.  In  view  of  the  firm  position  and  vehement  re- 
presentations of  Southern  Preachers,  McKendree,  Lee,  Tolleson,  and  others,  that  the 
existing  rules  would  no  longer  be  borne  with,  private  members  are  allowed  to  sell 
slaves  into  perpetual  slavery  as  the  dictate  of  "mercy  and  humanity,"  without  Church 
censure,  and  all  slave  holders  of  the  laity,  in  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  South  Carolina, 
and  Tennessee,  nre  exempted  from  the  operation  of  even  the  new  rule,  entirely.  The 
rules  of  1796  and  1800,  relating  to  interference  with  legislation,  are  repealed,  and  the 
Conference  goes  so  far  as  to  hazard,  for  the  first  time,  in  its  rules  and  regulations,  the 
distasteful  admonition  of  the  New  Testament,  that  slaves  should  obey  their  masters  and 
consult  their  interests.  At  the  next  General  Conference,  however,  the  admonition  was 
expunged,  ns  offensive  or  uncalled  for,  and  nothing  of  the  kind  has  appeared  in  our  le- 
gislation, or  marred  our  statute  books  since.  In  1808,  the  compromise  is  still  more  fully 
developed.  Every  thing  relating  to  slave  holding  among  private  members  is  expunged 
from  t'ne  Discipline,  and  each  annual  Conference  is  fully  authorized  to  make  its  own 
regulations,  relative  to  buying  and  soiling  slaves.  That  this  was  done  upon  demand 


15 

and  remonstrance  from  the  South,  will  not  be  denied,  and  how  far  it  goes  to  prove  the 
compromise  of  the  Protest,  let  men  of  sense  determine.  In  1812,  the  compromise,  to 
which  the  good  men  of  1780-3-4-5,  were  driven,  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  in  the 
very  face  of  their  own  rules,  and  despite  their  cherished  opinions  and  policy,  receives 
a  still  more  conclusive  form,  in  the  shape  of  a  direct  concession  in  terms,  upon  the  ur- 
gent representation  of  Southern  men,  that  the  laws  of  the  States  are  so  diverse  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  that  no  general  rule  can  apply,  and  hence  a  renewal  of  the  grant  of 
right  to  the  annual  Conferences,  to  control  the  whole  subject  as  they  saw  proper.  It 
was  then  agreed  by  the  North  and  South,  that  the  legislation  of  the  Church  must  con- 
form to  that  of  the  States,  and  emancipation  not  be  required  by  the  Church,  where  it  was 
opposed  by  law  and  public  opinion.  This  fair  and  manly  adjustment  of  a  grave  Church 
difficulty,  I  heard  Bishop  Asbury  explain  and  commend,  only  four  months  after  it  oc- 
curred, as  the  great  bond  of  union  between  the  North  and  the  South. 

In  1816,  we  have  the  last  of  a  series  of  kindred  measures — the  final  act  of  legisla- 
tion, alluded  to  in  the  Protest,  as  completing  the  compromise  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  "No  slave  holder,  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  here- 
after, where  the  laws  of  the  Church  in  which  he  lives,  admit  of  emancipation,  and  per- 
mit the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom."  Ergo,  "any  slave  holder,  (so  far  as  slave- 
ry alone  is  concerned,)  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church,  hereafter, 
(and  of  course  whether  as  Deacon,  Elder,  or  Bishop,)  where  the  laws  of  the  State,  in 
which  he  lives,  do  not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  the  liberated  slave  is  not  permitted 
to  enjoy  freedom."  This  is  a  plain  grant  of  law,  and  as  such  it  satisfied  the  South. 
The  South  has  always  been  satisfied  with  it.  Nothing  more  has  ever  been  asked  by 
the  South.  It  is  the  open  infraction— the  gross  violation  of  this  law  by  the  North,  of 
which  we  complain,  and  to  which  the  South  will  not  submit.  Take  now  the  law  of 
1800,  the  two  regulating  the  entire  traveling  connexion  and  local  ministry — "When 
any  traveling  Preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall 
forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a 
legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  in  which  he 
lives."  Hence,  "no  traveling  Preacher,  becoming  an  owner  of  slaves,  by  any  of  the 
tenures  recognized  by  law,  in  slave  holding  States,  will  be  subjected  to  a  forfeiture  of 
his  ministerial  rights,  if  legal  emancipation  be  impracticable,  in  conformity  with  the 
law  of  the  State,  in  which  he  lives."  With  this,  the  South  is  equally  satisfied,  and  by 
it  we  are  willing  to  abide.  We  only  complain  of  its  violation  by  the  North.  And  so 
of  the  general  rule,  as  a  prohibition, — "The  buying  or  selling  of  men,  women,  or  chil- 
dren, with  an  intention  to  enslave  them."  If  then,  a  man  shall  not  buy  or  sell  man, 
woman,  or  child,  with  intention  to  deprive  them  of  liberty,  or  reduce  them  to  a  state  of 
slavery,  he  cannot  violate  the  general  rule.  And  with  this  too  the  South  are  perfectly 
satisfied.  These  rules  fairly  interpreted  according  to  their  most  obvious  meaning,  as 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1S40 — interpreted  as  they  would  be  in  any  intelligent 
Court  of  Equity,  afford  all  the  protection  we  need.  The  construction,  however,  placed 
upon  them,  the  two  former  especially,  by  the  last  General  Conference,  virtually  repeals 
them,  and  it  is  against  such  nullification  we  protest.  Believing  as  we  have  shown,  and 
shall  further  show,  that  the  legislation  of  the  Church  on  slavery,  especially  since  1800, 
originated  in  concession  and  compromise,  call  it  by  what  name  you  will,  the  South  have 
always  relied  on  it  as  a  solemn  compact,  based  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  parties,  and  re- 
gard the  violation  of  it,  by  the  late  General  Conference,  as  inconsistent  with  fidelity  to 
the  obligations  of  a  grave  public  engagement. 


16 

In  1820,  the  only  action  of  the  General  Conference  respecting  slavery  was  to  take 
from  the  Annual  Conferences  the  authority  to  make  their  own  regulations  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  this  action  was  had  in  view  of  the  Memorial  already  alluded  to.  from  a  mi- 
nority of  the  Tennessee  Conference  and  the  representations  of  Bishops  McKendree  and 
George;  in  connection  with  it.  In  1824  the  general  law  of  slavery  was  left  untouched. 
So  also  in  '28,  '32,  '36  '40  and  '44,  except,  that  by  construction,  the  last  General  Con- 
ference changed  it  entirely,  and  so  undermined  all  the  securities  of  the  South,  and  re- 
duced us  to  the  necessity  of  resistance,  as  an  act  of  self-preservation.  As  the  general 
rule,  the  course  of  legislation  on  this  subject  has  always  been  a  conservative,  middle 
one,  between  Northern  and  Southern  convictions  and  interests.  The  necessity  of  union 
was  always  strongly  felt,  and  this  interest  prevailed,  but  not  until  either  section  or  par- 
ty, North  and  South,  had  yielded  highly  cherished  preferences,  on  the  ground  of  conces- 
sion and  forbearance.  And  not  only  is  it  susceptible  of  the  clearest  historical  and  logi- 
cal proof,  that  the  law  of  slavery  has  always  been  a  virtual  compromise,  but  the  whole 
administration  based  upon  existing  law,  from  time  to  time,  has  been  such  in  fact,  be- 
cause accommodated  to  the  ever-varying  circumstances,  under  which  it  has  been  ap- 
plied. If  not,  why  has  the  law,  in  so  many  instances,  as  we  have  seen,  been  permit- 
ted to  remain  a  dead  letter — a  mere  bruturn  fulmen,  when  it  came  in  conflict  with  cir- 
cumstances and  developments,  rendering  its  exercise  inconsistent  with  the  more  general 
reasons  and  causes,  which  gave  it  birth?  We  are  reminded,  however,  (hat  all  this  is  de- 
nied both  by  the  writers  and  signers  of  the  Reply,  (it  was  the  joint  production  of  three 
different  writers,  only  one  of  whom  signed  it,)  and  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  vary  the  evi- 
dence on  this  subject.  The  Protest  assumes  a  legal  compromise,  in  the  absence  of 
its  forms,  and  the  Reply  quietly  assures  all  concerned,  that  it  is  an  absurd  fiction,  un- 
worthy of  credit.  This  denial,  without  a  word  of  proof,  is  offered  as  quite  sufficient  to 
overthrow  the  Protest  entirely.  The  summary  endorsement  of  the  quintuple  alliance 
of  Northern  editors,  was  of  course  superfluous.  If  it  should  be  made  appear,  however, 
that  legislative  compromise  is  by  no  means  uncommon,  but  in  fact  of  frequent  occur- 
rence, and  notoriously  one  of  the  most  ordinary  forms  of  party  stipulation,  it  will  at 
least  tend  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  fairer  estimate  of  the  mass  of  evidence  we  have  yet 
to  present,  on  the  subject  in  dispute.  The  well  known  political  balance  of  mutual 
rights  and  interests,  as  secured  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  has  been  recognized  as  a  compromise,  since  the  foundation  of  the 
government,  without  any  direct  evidence,  however,  of  any  thing  resembling  compro- 
mise, in  the  Constitution  itself.  A  conventional  understanding  has,  during  this  whole 
term,  existed  between  the  North  and  South,  to  the  effect,  that  in  the  admission  of  new 
States  into  the  confederacy,  the  number  of  free  and  slave  States  shall  be  equal,  or  as 
nearly  so  as  practicable ;  and  this  has  been  invariably  appealed  to,  as  a  compromise  not 
to  be  disregarded  by  either  party,  without  the  imputation  of  implied  dishonor,  although 
no  express  contract  exists  to  this  effect.  The  evidence  is  found  in  the  Constitutional 
history  of  the  country.  When  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  1820,  decided  up- 
on a  proposition  from  the  Hon.  H.  Clay,  that  no  slave  State  should  be  admitted  into  the 
Union,  North  of  latitude  36  30,  and  the  North  agreed  to  admit  Missouri,  and  settle  the 
slavery  question  as  then  agitated,  upon  the  basis  of  such  a  prospective  arrangement,  it 
was  then,  and  has  ever  since  been,  regarded  as  a  compromise,  reasonably  and  fairly 
binding  the  South  against  any  attempts  to  extend  slavery  beyond  this  line,  and  the 
North  against  meddling  with  the  question,  by  opposing  the  admission  of  slave  States 
South  of  it,  unless  they  should  exceed  in  number  the  free  States  North.  However  in- 
formal, iliis  conventional  arrangement,  it  has  always  been  understood  and  recognized  as 


17 

a  compromise,  which  saved  the  Union  of  the  States,  both  by  the  people  of  this  country, 
and  throughout  the  civilized  world. 

Mr.  Madison  informs  us,  that  a  measure  introduced  into  Congress  in  1782,  was  car- 
ried through  and  became  a  law  "by  compromise,"  and  yet,  in  the  reported  proceed- 
ings of  Congress,  the  evidence  is  not  found  upon  the  Journal.  Mr.  Madison  also  in- 
forms us,  that  in  settling  the  question  in  the  Congress  of  1783,  in  what  proportion 
slaves  should  come  in  as  a  basis  of  representation,  the  question  could  only  be  settled 
by  compromise;  and  yet  the  compromise  does  not  appear  upon  the  face  of  the  record. 
In  the  Convention  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  1787, 
there  was  a  special  conventional  compromise,  as  Madison,  Hamilton,  and  others,  assure 
us,  between  the  North  and  the  South,  respecting  commerce  and  slavery — the  Northern 
confederates  needing  what  it  was  the  interest  of  the  South  to  withhold,  but  the  North 
insisting,  the  South  yielded,  in  view  of  a  similar  concession  to  them  in  favor  of  slave- 
ry. The  evidence  of  the  fact,  however,  does  not  appear  in  the  Constitution,  but  else- 
where ;  although  it  is  as  certain,  as  it  is  likely  to  become  important  in  the  history  of 
the  country.  The  West  India  Emancipation  bill  is  known  and  recognized  in  the  de- 
bates of  Parliament,  and  British  history,  as  a  compromise;  and  yet  as  a  law  it  wears 
the  aspect  of  a  simple  decree,  and  is  only  known  as  a  compromise,  because  it  was  an 
adjustment  of  a  difficult  question  between  the  West  India  Planters  and  the  Imperial 
Legislature,  upon  the  ground  of  mutual  concession.  Even  Magna  Charta  is  shown  by 
Hallam,  Godwin  and  others,  to  have  been  a  compromise,  and  as  such  has  given  char- 
acter to  British  legislation  ever  since,  although  the  form  of  this  celebrated  instrument 
does  not  indicate  the  fact.  The  existing  government  of  France  is  recognized  by  philo- 
sophical statesmen,  as  the  great  compromise  between  the  absolutism  of  one  part  of  the 
nation,  and  the  republicanism  of  the  other;  and  it  is  strictly  true  that  the  government 
of  Louis  Phillippe  is  a  compromise  arrangement,  although  it  may  not  appear  upon  the 
Statute  book,  or  in  the  Cabinet  archives.  During  a  period  of  near  a  century  before  the 
American  Revolution,  a  conventional  understanding  existed  between  the  colonies  of 
this  countrv  and  the  English  government,  that  while  the  latter  had  the  right  to  regu- 
late external  taxation,  duties,  and  imposts,  connected  with  the  colonies,  the  undoubted 
right  belonged  to  the  former,  to  regulate  all  internal  taxation  ;  and  a  well  defined  com- 
promise to  this  effect,  without  any  formal  stipulation,  had  become  so  incorporated  with 
the  convictions  and  feelings  of  the  American  people,  that  its  violation  by  the  British 
ministry,  instantly  decided  the  colonies  in  favor  of  revolt.  The  question  of  slavery,  in 
British  India,  has  long  been  treated  by  the  Parliament  and  Press  of  England,  as  a  com- 
promise arrangement — one  party  insisting  on  its  abolition,  and  the  other  resisting  it, 
as  subversive  of  British  sovereignty  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe.  The  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment has  always  been  regarded  as  a  compromise,  while  mere  legislation  has  given 
the  subject  no  such  aspect.  The  adjustment  of  the  great  Tariff  question,  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  in  1832,  is  known  as  the  Compromise  act  of  Congress  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  yet,  upon  its  face,  it  is  a  simple  decree  of  national  legislation.  Speaking  of 
English  compromise  grants,  the  Crown,  the  Nobility,  and  the  Commons  being  parties, 
Hale  says  :  "The  concession  of  these  Charters  was  in  Parliamentary  form." 

Dr.  Bangs  and  Bishop  Emory,  both  style  the  suspended  resolutions  of  1820,  usually 
known  as  the  Presiding  Elder  question,  a  compromise;  yet  no  evidence  of  the  fact  ap- 
pears upon  the  face  of  the  law,  and  it  is  evident  they  reasoned  in  the  case,  as  we  have 
in  the  Protest,  the  law  was  a  compromise  because  it  originated,  as  did  the  law  of  slave- 
ry, in  the  mutual  concession  of  antagonist  parties.  The  proposition  of  the  Bishops  to 
the  late  General  Conference,  to  postpone  the  whole  question  in  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
3 


IS 


drew  until  1849,  was  regarded  and  has  since  been  represented  by  both  parties  as  a  com- 
promise measure,  without  being  so  shaped  or  styled  by  its  authors.  Dr.  Emory,  and 
subsequently  the  Bishops,  in  an  official  address,  and  more  recently  Dr.  Elliott,  repre- 
sent the  conventional  agreement  of  the  traveling  ministry,  to  labor  where  the  Episco- 
pacy may  appoint,  and  the  people  to  submit  without  any  claim  of  right  to  select  their 
pastors,  as  a  compromise  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and  which  cannot  be  viola- 
ted without  high  moral  blame,  but  certainly  without  any  formal  stipulations  to  this 
effect. 

By  analogy  then,  the  circumstances  of  conventional  understanding  and  legislative 
adjustment,  being  the  same  or  similar,  is  it  not  with  the  most  perfect  and  entire  pro- 
priety, the  Protest  speaks  of  the  compromise  law  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slave- 
ry? Nor  in  doing  so,  was  there  any  thing  constrained  or  far-fetched.  It  is  a  conclu- 
sion so  natural  and  necessary,  in  view  of  the  premises,  as  furnished  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  that  the  only  wonder  is,  that  men  claiming  enlarged  information  could  be 
prevailed  upon  to  risk  its  denial.  It  is  urgently  assumed  in  the  Reply,  that  the  North 
has  always  been  conceding  to  the  South,  as  it  regards  slavery.  The  question  arises, 
have  they  done  so,  except  as  it  was  just  and  right?  Have  they  sacrificed  principle  and 
duty,  by  concession?  If  not,  the  just  claims  of  the  South  to  the  concessions  made,  are 
admitted  by  their  own  acts  in  the  case,  and  the  result  is  compromise.  We  have  seen, 
and  shall  have  occasion  further  to  see,  that  in  order  to  the  very  existence  of  the  law  of 
slavery  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  compromise  was  an  indispensable  condi- 
tion. Without  it  the  law  could  not  have  been.  In  a  conflict  of  necessities,  the  parties 
legislated  upon  the  principle  of  mutual  accommodation.  Neither  party  had  what  they 
desired,  each  gave  up  what  they  were  anxious  not  to  part  with,  but  agreed  to  unite, 
upon  what  they  could  obtain,  in  the  adjustment,  without  disunion,  and  this  social  guar- 
anty, in  the  shape  of  public  law,  has  been  looked  upon,  in  the  South  at  least,  as  a  com- 
promise, because  concession  was  known  to  be  its  basis,  and  because,  without  such  a  re- 
ciprocal modification  of  different  and  opposing  elements,  interests,  and  wishes,  no  law 
could  have  bound  the  North  and  South  together.  The  Bishops  in  their  General  Confer- 
ence address,  1840,  say,  "it  is  impossible  to  frame  a  rule  on  slavery  proper  for  our  peo- 
ple in  all  the  States  alike,"  and  certainly  it  is  not  less  impossible  to  do  it  in  the  case  of 
the  ministry.  The  only  reasons  involving  conscience  or  principle,  apply  alike  in  either 
case.  And  accordingly  the  law  of  the  Church  has  always  been  different  in  its  applica- 
tion to  different  States,  and  we  are  thus  presented  A'ith  the  necessity,  the  reasons,  and 
the  fact,  of  compromise,  as  assumed  in  the  Protest.  The  sum  of  the  whole  legislation 
on  the  subject,  has  been  essentially  conventional  in  character  end  bearing,  and  although 
without  any  formal  ratification  by  the  parties  as  such,  has  been  in  fact  a  compromise 
arrangement.  Dr.  Bangs  says,  "the  several  modifications  of  the  rules  on  slavery,  from 
one  General  Conference  to  another,  until  the  present  time,  all  partake  of  a  similar 
character,"  (that  of  compromise,)  "intending  to  record  the  opposition  of  the  Church  to  the 
system,  and  to  adopt  such  measures  to  mitigate  its  evils,  and  finally,  if  possible,  to  do 
it  away,  as  wisdom  and  prudence  should  suggest."  Speaking  of  the  legislation  of 
1784,  the  Dr.  says,  "even  this  gradual  process  could  not  be  carried  forward,  without 
producing  a.  greater  evil  than  it  was  intended  to  remove,"  and  adds,  that  the  law  "was 
suspended,"  (the  Church  finding  it  necessary  to  compromise,)  "in  favor  of  those  more 
wise  and  prudent  measures,  which  the  Church  has  ever  since  used,  and  is  ready  to  use, 
for  the  extirpation  of  slavery."  Even  the  zeal  of  Dr.  Coke  cooled  in  contact  with  the 
reasons  and  necessity  for  compromise  to  which  we  allude.  "On  his  second  visit  to 
America,  Dr.  Coke  was  convinced  he  had  acted  indiscreetly,  and  he  consented  (when 


19 

pressed  by  the  South,)  to  let  the  question  of  emancipation  alone."  "He  proceeded  in 
such  an  intolerant  spirit  of  philanthropy,  that  he  soon  provoked  violent  opposition." 
"His  mistaken  zeal  and  the  unfavorable  influence  his  opinions  and  course  had,  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  in  the  South,  are  matters  of  history." — Dreiv's  Life  of  Coke,  South- 
ey's  Wesley,  Coke's  Journal.  The  General  Conference  in  their  address  to  the  British 
Conference  in  1840,  say,  "under  the  administration  of  Dr.  Coke,  emancipation  was 
urged  alike  in  all  the  States,  without  reference  to  law  or  public  opinion — the  attempt 
proved  almost  ruinous,  and  was  soon  abandoned  by  the  Dr.  himself.  While  therefore, 
the  Church  has  encouraged  emancipation,  in  those  States  where  the  laws  permit  it,  and 
allow  the  freedman  to  enjoy  freedom,  we  have  refrained  from  conscience  sake,  from  all 
intermedling  with  the  subject,  in  those  States,  where  the  laws  make  it  criminal"  Would 
truth  permit  the  last  Generel  Conference  to  make  such  a  statement'!  They  add,  "the 
question  of  the  evil  of  slavery,  is  a  very  different  matter,  from  a  principle  or  rule  of 
Church  discipline,  to  be  executed  contrary  to  and  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  land." 
There  is  perhaps  no  single  word  in  tlie  English  language,  so  fully  expressive  of  the 
meaning  of  the  General  Conference  in  this  statement,  as  the  single  word  compromise, 
if  we  take  into  the  account,  with  the  course  of  action  indicated,  the  reasons  which  ob- 
viously led  to  it.  The  General  Conference  says,  of  both  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Church,  "with  their  rights  as  citizens  of  these  United  States,  the  Church  disclaims 
all  interference."  Apply  this  to  the  Southern  ministry  and  membership,  connected  with 
slavery,  where  emancipation  is  impracticable,  and  what  does  it  expressly  authorize  them 
to  assume,  on  coining  into  the  Church,  or  any  grade  of  the  ministry]  By  what  means 
could  it  be  made  clearer,  that  the  General  Conference  pledges,  that  the  legislation  and 
practical  government  of  the  Church,  should  be  such,  as  not  to  conflict  with  the  rights 
of  citizenship  in  any  of  the  States.  How  was  this  pledge  treated  by  the  late  General 
Conference,  especially  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew]  The  General  Conference  of 
1836  declared,  "such  is  the  diversity  of  habits,  thoughts,  manners,  customs,  and  do- 
mestic relations,  among  the  people  of  this  vast  Republic,  and  the  diversity  of  the  insti- 
tutions of  this  vast  confederacy,  that  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  an  easy  task,  to  suit  all 
the  incidental  circumstances  of  our  economy  to  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  vast  mass 
of  minds  interested."  Is  it  not  intended,  that  the  facts  brought  into  view,  shall  desid- 
erate the  necessity  of  compromise,  in  order  to  prove  its  reasonableness,  as  it  actually  ex- 
isted in  the  law  of  the  Church]  Again  they  say,  "we  pray  that  brethren,  will  at  least 
give  us  the  credit  of  having  acted  in  good  faith,  not  having  regarded  private  ends  or 
party  interest,  but  the  best  good  of  the  whole  family  of  American  Methodists."  The 
allusion  here  to  parties,  "party  interests"  and  "good  faith,"  may  tempt  some  to  think,  that 
both  the  language  and  sentiments  of  the  General  Conference  had  been  plagiarised  into 
the  Protest.  They  add,  "we  assure  you,  we  have  adopted  no  new  principle  or  rule  of 
discipline,  respecting  slavery,  since  the  time  of  the  apostolic  Asbury,  neither  do  we 
mean  to  adopt  any.  There  are  States  in  which  slavery  exists  so  universally,  and  is  so 
closely  interwoven  with  the  civil  institutions,  that  both  do  the  laws  disallow  of  eman- 
cipation, and  the  great  body  of  the  people,  (the  source  of  laws  with  us,)  hold  it  to  be  trea- 
sonable, to  set  forth  any  thing  by  word  or  deed,  tending  that  way."  As  it  would  be 
wrong  and  un scriptural  to  enact  a  rule  of  discipline  contrary  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  Slate,  on  this  subject,  so  also  would  it  not  be  equitable  or  scriptural,  to 
confound  the  positions  of  our  ministers  and  people,  so  different  are  they  in  different 
States,  with  respect  to  the  moral  question  which  slavery  involves."  The  good  sense  of 
these  passages,  will  command  respect  every  where,  but  when  we  come  to  apply  them  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  we  are  compelled  to  see,  that  the  requirement  of  the  late 


20 

General  Conference  was  both  disallowed  and  held  to  be  treasonable  both  by  the  laws 
and  people  of  Georgia — was  contrary  alike  to  its  "Constitution  and  laws,"  if  the  last 
mav  explain  the  first,  and  therefore,  by  authority  of  the  General  Conference  of  1836, 
not  only  "wrong,"  and  "inequitable,"  but  "unscriptural,"  albeit,  it  is  in  bad  taste  and 
worse  odour  to  invoke  scripture  to  this  effect.  They  say  further,  "we  have  been  less 
or  more  agitated  with  the  perplexing  question  of  slavery,  interwoven  as  it  is,  in  many 
of  the  State  Constitutions,  and  left  to  (heir  disposal  by  the  civil  compact,  which  binds 
us  together  as  a  nation,  and  thus  put  beyond  the  power  of  the  legislation  of  the  General 
Government,  as  well  as  the  control  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  could  you  have  perceived  all 
its  delicate  relations  to  Ike  Church,  to  the  several  States,  and  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  you  would  have  sympathized  with  us  more  tenderly."  Contrast  with 
this  language,  the  rash  and  reckless  proceedings,  (so  we  are  compelled  to  regard  them,)  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  who  can  help  being  struck  with  their  irreconcila- 
ble dissimilarity.  Here  is  a  most  "perplexing  question,"  "interwoven"  with  some  fif- 
teen "State  Constitutions" — at  the  "disposal"  of  these  States  alone,  and  this  too  by  the 
stipulations  of  the  national  compact — "beyond  the  power  of  the  General  Government, 
or  the  control  of  ecclesiastical  bodies," — "delicalely"  connected  with  "the  Church" — 
the  "several  States"  and  the  government  of  the  United  States.  In  1344,  however,  all 
is  changed.  The  Majority  place  "theatres  and  grog-shops,"  side  by  side  with  slavery, 
and  declare  them  equally  allied  to  law  and  government.  And  their  organs  have  since 
improved  upon  the  discovery,  by  the  addition  of  "drunkenness,  profaneness,  and  the 
card  table" — all  equally  condemned  by  morality,  yet  equally  protected  by  law!  The 
General  Conference  of  1836,  by  solemn  resolution  declared,  "we  wholly  disclaim,  anv 
right,  wish,  or  intention,  to  interfere,  in  the  civil  and  political  relation,  between  master 
and  slave,  as  it  exists  in  the  slave  holding  States  in  this  Union."  Here  the  relation 
between  master  and  slave  is  "civil  and  political,"  and  the  Conference  disavows  any 
"right"  to  "intefere."  Georgia  was  a  slaveholding  State — Bishop  Andrew  a  citizen 
and  master,  and  the  late  General  Conference  declared,  that  the  "civil  and  political"  re- 
lation, existing  between  him  and  his  slaves,  must  be  dissolved,  or  he  cease  to  be  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  except  in  a  state  of  suspension— that  is, 
hung  up  for  further  punishment.  Take  the  public  faith  of  the  Church,  as  pledged  to 
James  O.  Andrew,  in  the  resolution  above,  and  then  turn  to  (he  redemption  of  that 
pledge  by  the  late  General  Conference,  and  tell  us  which  is  laboring  under  the  greater 
"impediment,"  and  which  ought  to  "desist,"  until  it  is  removed?  In  the  address  of  the 
Bishops  in  1836,  they  say,  "from  a  calm  and  dispassionate  survey  of  the  whole  ground, 
we  have  come  to  the  solemn  conviction,  that  the  only  safe  scriptural  and  [prudent  way 
for  us,  both  as  ministers  and  people  to  take,  is  wholly  to  abstain  from  this  agitating  sub- 
ject." What  deference  did  the  Majority  of  the  late  General  Conference  extend  to  this 
advice?  In  all  the  General  Conference  olympiads  of  the  Church, .has  any  one  been 
half  as  much  distinguished  by  agitation,  as  was  the  close  of  the  last? 

The  Bishops  state  in  behalf  of  the  Annual  Conferences  generally—"  they  have  no  dis- 
position to  criminate  their  brethren  in  the  South,  who  are  unavoidably  connected  with 
slavery,  or  to  separate  from  them  on  that  account."  Bishop  Andrew,  by  the  showing 
of  his  prosecutors,  was  "  unavoidably  connected  with  slavery,"  entirely  apart  from  his 
marriage,  and  the  assurance  here  given  by  the  Bishops,  and  endorsed  by  the  General 
Conference,  was  utterly  disregarded  in  his  case.  The  Bishops  add  of  the  Conferences, 
11  they  clearly  perceived  that  the  success  of  abolition  measures  would  result  in  the  di- 
vision of  the  Church."  Did  or  did  not  the  anti-slavery  party  so  act  at  the  late  General 
Conference,  aa  to  give  success  to  "  abolition  measures,"  and  thus  incur  the  responsibiU 


21 

ity  of  a  "  division  of  the  Church'!"     In  the  same  connection,  the  Bishops  strongly  in- 
sist on  "  no  imposition  of  new  terms  of  communion — no  violation  of  covenant  engage- 
ments, on  the  part  of  the  Church."     This  is  too  much  in  character  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Protest,  not  to  be  condemned  with  it.     The  Bishops  obviously  regarded  the  Annual 
Conferences  as  original  contracting  parties,  creating  the  Delegated  General  Conference 
with  limited  rights  and  powers,  and  the  law  of  slavery  as  one  of  congruityand  comity, 
to  which  they  had  mutually  consented,  in  General  Conference  action,  for  the  good  of  tho 
whole  body — hence  the  law  of  slavery  a  term  of  communion — and  "  covenant  engage- 
ments" which  may  be  broken  by  the  General  Conference.     Does  the  abused  compro- 
mise of  the  Protest  assume  more  than  this!     The  Bishops  remark  further :  "  Rules 
have  been  made,  from  time  to  time,  regulating  the  sale,  and  purchase,  and  holding  of 
slaves,  which,  upon  experience  of  the  great  difficulty  of  administering  them,  and  the  un- 
happy consequences,  both  to  masters  and  servants,  have  been  as  often  changed  and  repeal- 
ed.    These  important  facts,  which  form  prominent  features  of  our  past  history,  as  a 
Church,  may  very  properly  prepare  us  for  that  course  of  action  in  future,  which  may  be 
best  calculated  to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  whole  body — promote  the  happi- 
ness of  the  slave  population,  and  advance,  generally,  in  the  slave  holding  community  of 
our  own  country,  the  humane  and  hallowing  influence  of  our  religion.  We  cannot  withhold 
from  you,  at  this  eventful  period,  the  solemn  conviction  of  our  minds,  that  no  new  ec- 
clesiastical legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  at  this  time,  will  have  a  tendency  to 
accomplish  these  most  desirable  objects."     How  far  this  admonition,  to  adhere  to  ex- 
isting "  covenant  engagements" — the  compromise  of  the  Protest,  was  adhered  to  in  the 
premises  of  this  controversy — and  to  what  extent  "  new  legislation"  was  had  by  forced 
construction  of  existing  law,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see  by  viewing  the  subject  in  a 
variety  of  additional  aspects.     The  Bishops  vehemently  urge  the  ministry,  including 
themselves,  to  employ  their  "  whole  influence  to  bring  both  slave  and  master  to  a  sa- 
ving knowledge  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  a  practical  observance  of  the  relative  duties 
of 'master  and  slave,'  so  clearly  prescribed  in  the  writings  of  the  inspired  Apostles." — 
(The  duties  growing  out  of  the  relations  of  the  theatre,  grog  shop,  card  table  and  race 
ground,  omitted.)     "Can  we,"  they  add,  "at  this  eventful  crisis,  render  a  better  ser- 
vice to  our  country,  than  by  laying  aside  all  interference  with  relations  authorized  and 
established  by  the  civil  laws,  and  applying  ourselves  wholly  and  faithfully  to  what 
specially  appertains  to  our  high  and  holy  calling — to  teach  and  enforce  the  moral  obli- 
gations of  the  Gospel,  in  application  to  all  the  duties  growing  out  of  the  different  rela- 
tions of  society.     If  past  history  affords  us  any  correct  rules  of  judgment,  there  is  much 
cause  to  fear,  that  the  influence  of  our  sacred  office,  if  employed  in  interfering  with  the 
relation  itself,  and  consequently,  with  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  will  rather 
tend  to  prevent  than  to  accomplish  these  desirable  ends."     How  this  advice,  sanction- 
ed as  it  had  been  by  the  whole  Church,  was  dishonored  by  the  late  General  Conference, 
no  one  need  be  told. 

The  British  Conference,  in  the  last  charge  to  their  West  India  Missionaries,  before 
the  abolition  of  slavery  there,  explicitly  declare  :  "  Your  only  business  is  to  promote 
the  moral  and  religious  improvement  of  the  slaves  to  whom  you  have  access,  without, 
in  the  least  degree,  in  public  or  private,  interfering  with  their  civil  condition."  And  in 
their  address  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1839,  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
they  say  :  "You  are  placed  in  circumstances  of  painful  trial  and  perplexity.  We  en- 
ter with  brotherly  sympathy  into  the  peculiar  situation  you  are  called  to  occupy."  First 
disclaiming  any  right  to  meddle  with  the  civil  condition  of  the  slave,  even  in  the  West 
Indies,  where  slavery  existed  without  the  guaranties  with  which  it  is  surrounded  in  this 


22 

country  ;  and  secondly,  admitting  that  our  position,  in  this  respect,  is  a  peculiarly  try- 
ing one,  and  therefore  calls  for  treatment  suitable  to  the  difficulty  and  issues  involved. 
Again,  the  British  Wesleyans  instruct  their  Missionaries—"  on  all  persons,  in  a  state 
of  slavery,  you  are  diligently  and  explicitly  to  enforce  the  same  exhortations  which  the 
Apostle  of  our  Lord  administered  to  the  slaves  of  ancient  nations."     There  is  certainly  a 
startling  contrast  between  these  views,  and  the  kindred  advice  of  our  Bishops,  as  it  re- 
gards the  apostolic  practice  of  inculcating  upon  all  slaves,  the  Scripture  duty  of  obedi- 
ence and  fidelity,  and  the  affectation  of  pious  horror  manifested  at  the  recent  General 
Conference,  lest  the  Bible  should  be  invoked  on  this  subject  for  any  purpose  not  involv- 
ing the  denunciation  of  slavery.     The  difference  is,  the  first  has,  and  the  second  lacks 
the  warrant  of  the  Bible.     At  the  Western  Conference  in  Tennessee,  in  1808,  Bishop  As- 
bury  says:  "  We  made  a  regulation  on  slavery  ;  it  was,  that  no  member  of  society,  or 
preacher,  should  sell  or  buy  a  slave,  unjustly,  inhumanly,  or  covetously."     The  conces- 
sion here  by  Bishop  Asbury  and  the   Conference,  is,  that  in   view  of  the  existing 
system  of  slavery,  (though  regarded  as  an  evil,)  ministers,  as  well  as  members  of  the 
Church,  may  nevertheless  both  buy  and  sell  slaves,  without  the  charge  of  injustice,  in- 
humanity, or  covetousness — that  is,  without  any  charge  of  moral  wrong.     At  the  Vir- 
ginia Conference,  in  1809,  Bishop  Asbury  says:  "  We  are  defrauded  of  great  numbers 
by  the  pains  that  are  taken  to  keep  the  blacks  from  us."     Why]    He  adds,  "their  mas- 
ters are  afraid  of  our  principles" — that  is,  abolition  principles.     He  goes  on,  "would  not 
an  amelioration  in  the  treatment  and  condition  of  slaves,  have  produced  more  good  to 
the  poor  Africans,  than  any  attempt  at  their  emancipation?     What  is  the  personal  lib- 
erty of  the  African,  which  he  may  abuse,  to  the  salvation  of  his  soul!"  Well  may  we 
pause  over  these  concessions  of  the  experienced  Asbury.     He  avows  that  abolition  had 
"  defrauded"  the  Church  of  multitudes,  (not  only  thousands,  but  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  slaves,)  and  he  admits  that  the  salvation  of  these  unfortunate  slaves  had  been  jeop- 
ardized by  attempts  at  their  emancipation,  which  had  proved  as  abortive,  as  they  were 
offensive  and  injurious.     At  the  Southern  Conference,  held  at  Green  Hills,  North  Caro- 
lina, in  1785,  Dr.  Coke  warmly,  and  in  reproachful  language,  objected  to  the  character 
of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  because  he  was  not  in  favor  of  coercing  the  immediate  unconditional 
emancipation  of  all  slaves  owned  by  Methodists.     This  resulted  in  a  serious  personal 
conflict,  producing  great  division  of  feeling,  and  a  high  state  of  excitement  in  the  Con- 
ference.    The  Doctor  found  himself  in  the  minority,  and  finally  apologised  for  his  con- 
duct.    The  difficulty,  however,  was  renewed  a  few  days  after,  at  a  Conference  in  Vir- 
ginia, where  the  people  became  greatly  excited  against  the  Conference,    on  account 
of  their  interference  in  matters  of  civil  right.     The  author  of  the  Life  of  Lee,  alluding 
to  this  conflict  with  Dr.  Coke,  remarks  that  Lee  "  anticipated  what  in  reality  was 
brought  to  pass,  a  few  years  after,  that  the  spirit  of  the  (Southern)  people  would  be 
roused,  by  pressing  the  subject  too  closely,  and  that  it  would  be  the  means  of  closing 
the  door  effectually  against  future  emancipation."     Indeed,  nothing  is  more  evident, 
than  that  parties,  as  they  now  exist,  have  existed  from  the  beginning,  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  on  this  subject ;  and  that  the  zeal  and  indiscretion  of  the  abolition 
party,  during  the  whole  term,  have  tended  directly  to  check  and  arrest  the  progress  of 
emancipation,  so  that  no  unimportant  portion  of  Southern  slavery,  is  directly  chargea- 
ble, during  a  period  of  sixty  years,  to  such  interference  by  a  portion  of  the  Church. 
History  and  experience,  a  thousand  experiments  and  as  many  failures,  have  demonstra- 
ted to  the  good  sense  of  all  concerned,  that  to  meddle  and  denounce,  can  never  miti- 
gate the  evils  of  slavery,  in  this  country.     And  if  slavery  and  Methodism  ought  not  to 
co-exist,  in  the  same  fellowship,  why,  in  the  name  of  any  or  all  the  virtues,  has  the  con- 


23 

nection  been  allowed  at  all,  whether  by  Wesley  himself,  in  the  early  American  and 
West  India  societies,  or  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  Mr.  Wesley  made  no  at- 
tempt to  exclude  it — had  no  rule — gave  no  directions  on  the  subject.  He  condemned 
the  system,  but  as  a  practical  question  of  civil  origin  and  regulation,  refused  to  meddle 
with  it.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  always  waged  war  upon  the  evil,  and 
yet  would  not  part  with  it  ;  that  is  to  say,  has  always  proclaimed  slavery  an  evil,  and 
yet  admitted  slave  holders  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  lay  and  ministerial  stand- 
ing. A  standing  antagonism  has  been  maintained,  but  always  in  a  state  of  wedlock. 
How  will  the  historian  make  appear,  that  it  was  fair  and  just,  honest  and  honorable, 
to  admit  slave  holders,  as  they  have  notoriously,  since  1770,  both  to  membership  and 
office,  with  the  intention  of  making  emancipation  the  condition  of  the  one  and  the  other, 
subsequently?  If  the  first  be  admitted  but  the  latter  denied,  then  what  becomes  of  the 
Church's  "  opposition"  to  slavery?  In  what  sense  has  slavery  "  been  treated  as  an 
evil?"  Unless  we  take  the  ground  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Church  to  oppose 
slavery,  as  one  of  the  many  forms  of  civil  oppression,  but  not  to  treat  the  slave  holder  as 
involved  in  moral  blame,  in  view  of  the  mere  relation  itself,  how  can'we  defend  the  char- 
acter of  the  Church?  Look  at  the  ground  we  have  just  gone  over.  Why  this  temporiz- 
ing hesitation — this  complication  of  terms  and  conditions— these  declarations  of  hostili- 
ty, followed  by  truce,  suspension  and  repeal?  Look  at  the  subject  as  we  may,  the  idea 
and  the  necessity  of  compromise,  obtrude  at  every  step.  The  real  difficulty,  which  ev- 
er and  anon  has  presented  itself,  in  the  history  of  legislation,  has  always  arisen  out  of 
a  conflict  of  opposing  elements  and  interests.  The  conflict  proves  the  existence  of  par- 
ties, and  the  adjustment  of  the  difficulty,  by  legal  enactment  of  the  parties  in  common 
council,  proved  the  only  and  yet  real  compromise,  for  which  we  contend.  Lee,  in  his 
history  of  American  Methodism,  speaking  of  the  legislation  of  1784,  observes  :  "These 
rules  were  offensive  to  most  of  our  Southern  friends,  and  were  so  much  opposed  by 
many  of  our  private  members,  local  preachers,  and  some  of  the  traveling  preachers, 
that  the  execution  of  them  was  suspended."  That  is,  the  legislation  of  a  majority  was 
suspended  upon  the  Protest  of  a  Southern  minority.  The  parties  were  as  distinctly 
marked  sixty  years  ago  as  now.  Lee  says  of  the  Conference  first  legislating  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  in  1780  :  "  None  of  the  preachers  South  of  Baltimore  were  present 
at  the  Conference."  It  was  a  Northern  movement  entirely — a  one-sided  measure — the 
South  would  not  submit  to  it,  and  the  "  Rules"  soon  went  to  the  grave  of  the  Capulets. 
The  action  in  1780,  should  be  carefully  kept  in  view,  as  the  deed  of  the  North,  distin- 
guished from  the  South,  although  it  has  been  dexterously  palmed  upon  the  whole  body 
of  primitive  Methodist  preachers.  Lee  is  explicit:  "On  the  24th  day  of  April,  the 
eighth  Conference  met  in  Baltimore,  where  the  Northern  preachers  only  attended."  The 
North  had  the  preponderance  of  strength,  and  ruled,  as  now,  the  minority  of  the  South. 
Speaking  of  the  Northern  Conference  and  the  Southern  Conference  contra-distinguished, 
Lee  says  the  Northern  Conference  "was  allowed  greater  privileges  than  that  in  the 
South,  especially  in  making  rules  and  forming  regulations  for  the  societies.  Accord- 
ingly, when  any  thing  was  agreed  to  in  the  Virginia  Conference,  (South)  and  after- 
wards disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  (North)  it  was  dropped.  But  if  any 
rule  was  fixed  and  determined  on  at  the  Baltimore  Conference,  the  preachers  in  the 
South  were  under  the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it."  The  North  having  the  majority,  and 
controlling  the  South.  In  1803  the  Southern  conferences  had  165  preachers,  and  56,- 
000  members;  while  the  Northern  Conferences  had  a  less  numerous  membership,  with 
218  preachers — an  excess  of  more  than  50;  and  a  similar  disproportion  has  always  ex- 
isted, giving  Church  control  to  the  North.  It  is  true,  in  early  times  the  North  and 


South  would  have  been  about  equal  in  numbers  and  strength,  had  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence acted  with  the  South,  where  geographically  and  politically  she  properly  belongs. 
That  Conference,  however,  has  always  cherished  affinities  for  the  North,  and  continues 
to  do  so,  and  this  fact  has  secured  to  the  North  the  power  of  the  Church  for  65  years  or 
more.  Contrary,  therefore,  to  the  round  assertion  of  the  Reply,  the  preponderance  of 
strength  has  always  been  in  the  North.  Upon  this  misstatement  of  fact,  and  the  conse- 
quent inconclusive  reasoning  of  the  Respondents,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge.  Nu- 
merous facts  support  our  general  position.  In  raising  a  fund,  the  year  before  our 
Church  organization,  that  is  in  1793,  for  the  support  of  preachers'  families,  the  assessment 
was  "North  Circuits  £200,  South  Circuits  £60;"  showing  the  great  disproportion  in 
strength  and  resources.  At  the  General  Conference  of  1804,  the  Baltimore  and  Phila- 
delphia Conferences  alone,  furnished  67  members,  nearly  two  thirds  of  the  whole  num- 
ber. Had  not  the  Baltimore  Conference  represented  Pennsylvania  rather  than  Mary- 
land, as  she  always  has  in  this  respect,  the  North  and  South  would  have  been  equally 
divided,  with  three  Bishops  (Englishmen)  at  their  head.  As  it  was,  the  North  was  de- 
cidedly in  the  ascendant.  Indeed,  up  to  the  General  Conference  of  1812,  the  Baltimore 
and  Philadelphia  Conferences  furnished  more  than  half  the  members  of  all  the  General 
Conferences.  I  have  often  heard  it  stated  by  those  who  were  present,  that  at  the  Christmas 
Conference  of  1784,  there  was  but  a  small  number  of  preachers  present,  and  scarcely  any 
from  the  South,  until  toward  the  close,  when  nearly  all  the  business  had  been  despatch- 
ed. This  statement  i*  sustained  by  Lee's  history,  and  especially  by  Bishop  Asbury, 
who  says  :  "  Friday  24,  (December,)  rode  to  Baltimore,  where  we  met  a  few  preach- 
ers;'it  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  with  Superintendents, 
Elders  and  Deacons ;  when  the  Conference  was  seated,  Dr.  Coke  and  myself  were  unan- 
imously elected  to  the  Superintendency  of  the  Church.  We  were  ingreat  haste,  and  did 
much  business  in  a  little  lime."  In  all  this,  Northern  ascendancy  is  distinctly  visible,  as 
the  power  of  control  has  been  in  fact  with  the  Northern  Conferences,  and  the  South 
strictly  a  minority. 

Bishop  Asbury  states,  that  soon  after  its  publication,  he  learned  that  the  address  in 
1800,  of  the  General  Conference,  calling  on  the  Southern  Legislatures  to  emancipate 
the  slaves  of  the  South,  had,  in  South  Carolina,  "been  the  occasion  of  producing  a  law, 
which  prohibited  ministers  attempting  to  instruct  any  number  of  blacks  with  the 
doors  shut,  and  authorizing  a  peace  officer  to  break  open  the  door  in  such  case?,  and 
disperse  or  whip  the  offenders.  Nothing  could  so  effectually  alarm,  and  arm  the  citi- 
zens of  South  Carolina,  against  the  Methodists,  as  the  address  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. They  did  indeed,  (before,)  give  their  slaves  liberty  to  hear  and  join  our  Church, 
but  now  it  appears  the  poor  Africans  will  no  longer  have  that  indulgence."  Again  he 
says,  "I  lament  that  I  have  no  access  to  the  poor  (slaves,)  our  way  is  strangely  closed  up, 
at  present,  in  consequence  of  the  address."  Drew,  speaking  of  Dr.  Coke  and  his 
associates,  remarks,  "on  account  of  their  attacks  on  slavery,  they  were  in  danger  of 
being  altogether  hindered  from  prosecuting  their  ministry,  and  hence  were  compelled  to 
change  their  course,"  that  is,  driven  to  compromise.  He  says,  "if  Dr.  Coke  had  contin- 
ued his  direct  attack  upon  the  slave  trade,  (slavery  is  meant,)  he  must  have  abandoned 
the  United  States."  These  and  kindred  facts,  enrly  decided  the  Church  in  favor  of  a 
compromise  course.  When,  at  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  the  Bishops  were  au- 
thorized to  ordain  colored  persons,  free  or  slaves,  to  the  office  of  Deacon,  it  was  deemed 
unadvisable  to  publish  the  fact,  nor  was  it  published  until  nine  years  after.  Lee  says, 
"most  of  the  Preachers  were  opposed  to  its  being  made  public."  Why  this  deference 
to  Southern  opinion  and  feeling,  unless  the  Church  had  resolved  on  a  course  of  cornpro- 


25 

mise  treatment?  Dr.  Bangs  says,  "they  found  it  necessary  to  relax  in  their  measures 
against  slave  holders,  without,  however,  attempting  to  justify  the  system  itself."  Lee 
says  of  these  early  measures  :  "  It  was  going  too  far,  and  calculated  to  irritate  the 
minds  of  our  people,  and  not  to  convince  them."  He  adds  :  "  Long  experience  has 
taught  us,  that  the  various  rules  that  have  been  made  on  this  subject,  have  not  been  at- 
tended with  that  success  which  was  expected.  We  are  well  assured  they  never  were 
of  any  particular  service  to  our  societies."  He  informs  us  :  '«  Dr.  Coke  met  with  much 
opposition  in  the  South,  owing  to  his  imprudent  manner  of  preaching  against  slavery. 
No  doubt  the  Doctor,  at  the  time,  thought  he  was  doing  right,  but  afterward,  when  he 
printed  his  Journal  in  England,  he  acknowledged  he  was  wrong  in  preaching  publicly 
against  slavery  in  Virginia,  where  the  practice  was  tolerated  by  law."  The  General 
Conference  of  1796,  apparently  in  doubt  about  what  had  been  done,  calls  upon  the  whole 
Church,  to  give,  in  any  form  they  might  prefer,  their  rnaturest  thoughts  on  slavery;  and 
yet  Coke  and  Asbury,  in  preparing  and  publishing,  by  request  of  this  Conference,  their 
notes  on  the  Discipline,  say  not  one  word  in  explanation  of  the  section  on  slavery.  The 
general  rule,  respecting  which  there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion,  they  explain,  but  pass 
over  the  vexed  question,  which  then,  as  now,  was  giving  the  Church  so  much  trouble — 
that  is,  how  we  are  to  attempt  correction,  without  increasing  the  evil?  Was  not  this 
very  silence  a  concession  to  the  magnitude  of  the  difficulty  ?  The  probability  that  the 
general  rule  was  inserted  by  order  of  the  Bishop's  council,  is  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that  the  slavery  question  was  allowed  to  slumber — was  not  agitated  at  all,  from  1785  to 
1796.  In  the  year  1789,  the  date  of  the  rule,  there  were  eleven  Conferences,  all  quite 
small,  as  we  learn  from  Lee,  Bangs,  and  others.  Noone  of  them  could  claim  any  thing 
like  conventional  authority,  and  this  fact,  connected  with  the  preceding  one,  renders  the 
supposition  above  almost  certain  ;  especially  when  connected  with  what  we  have  before 
stated,  and  the  silence  of  Conference  history  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Durbin  says:  "The  Church  has  gradually  made  concessions  to  the  necessities  of 
the  slave  holding  States — our  fathers  wisely  made  them,  on  the  ground  of  necessity — 
the  Methodist  Church  could  not  have  existed  at  all  in  the  South,  without  them."  An 
analysis  of  the  Doctor's  concession,  shows  that  the  majority  of  the  North  conceded,  up- 
on the  just  demand  of  the  South,  and  that  the  South  and  North,  in  asking  and  making 
the  concession,  sought  the  common  unity  and  good  of  the  whole,  and  the  Doctor  thus 
gives  us,  in  part,  the  true  compromise  of  the  Protest.  Dr.  Bangs  assumes  that  the 
Methodist  traveling  ministry  "  pledge  themselves  to  each  other,  not  to  violate  those 
conventional  obligations,  under  which  they  have  reciprocally  bound  themselves,  as  ar- 
ticles of  faith,  and  rules  of  moral,  religious  and  ministerial  duty.  Against  these  they 
are  not  at  liberty  to  speak,  preach,  or  write.  Without  the  redemption  of  this  pledge, 
there  can  be  no  peace  or  union."  How  far,  and  with  what  force  this  applies  to  our 
compromise  argument,  and  our  reasoning  on  the  subject  of  conventional  pledges,  in  ihe 
shape  of  legislation,  will  be  seen  at  once,  without  remark  from  us.  On  the  subject  of 
slavery  the  Dr.  says,  "at  almost  every  General  Conference,  some  enactment  has  been 
made  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  slavery — of  modifying  or  mitigating  its  character, 
with  a  view  ultimately,  if  practicable,  to  do  it  away.  It  is  manifest,  that  the  making 
rules  for  the  regulation  of  a  practice,  is  in  some  sense  to  pronounce,  that  the  practice 
is  not,  in  itself,  considered  independently  of  all  concurring  circumstances,  a  moral  evil 
in  the  sight  of  God.  To  legislate  for  a  thing  is  to  sanction  it,  though  the  manner  of 
holding  the  thing  may  be  considered  either  unlawful  or  inexpedient."  This  is  the  true 
compromise  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  legislation  of  the  Church  has  aimed  at  the 
regulation  of  the  practice  in  question.  This  implies  not  merely  toleration,  but  as  Dr. 

4 


•26* 

Bangs  says,  some  degree  of  "sanction."  The  Church  has  never  legislated,  in  view  of 
regulating  Drunkenness,  Profaneness,  Gambling,  Theatres,  and  Grog-shops.  Every  as- 
pect in  which  the  subject  comes  up,  proves  the  folly  of  any  attempt  to  place  slavery  in 
the  same  category  with  these.  The  whole  history  of  Methodism,  disowns  the  classifi- 
cation as  absurd,  and  in  the  language  of  the  General  Conference,  "unscriptural." 

On  the  general  view  of  the  subject  we  have  taken,  hear  the  venerable  Bishop  Hedding, 
whose  reasoning  has  never  been  influenced  by  a  Southern  sun  or  Southern  sympathies. 
He  says,  "the  Church  has  permitted  her  members  to  hold  slaves,  where  the  laws  of  the 
land  are  such  that  they  will  not  allow  of  emancipation,  without  subjecting  the  emanci- 
pated person  to  be  again  enslaved.  The  right  to  hold  a  slave,  is  founded  on  the  rule 
•all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.'  That 
there  are  many  such  cases  among  our  brethren  of  the  Southern  States,  I  firmly  believe. 
If  I  did  not  believe  it,  I  could  not  do  the  duties  the  Church  requires  me  to  perform, 
when  I  attend  the  Southern  Conferences.  If  I  had  not  believed  it  in  1824,  I  could  not 
have  accepted  the  charge  committed  to  me,  when  I  was  made  one  of  the  Superintendents 
of  the  whole  Church,  including  slaves  and  masters.  They  believe  that  to  emancipate 
their  slaves,  would  be  breaking  the  rule,  'do  as  you  would  be  done  by.'  We  cannot 
convince  them  by  censuring  them.  Other  means  must  be  used  if  ever  they  are  convin- 
ced. But  that  they  are  wrong  in  principle,  cannot  be  proved,  unless  you  can  produce  a 
precept  of  the  Divine  law  equal  to  this,  'thus  saith  the  Lord,  thou  shall  not  own  a  slave.' 
But  this  precept  is  not  in  the  Bible.  Will  you  say  slavery  is  condemned  in  the  parts 
which  compose  it.  This  is  true  of  the  slave  trade,  of  the  system,  and  of  all  the  injus- 
tice and  cruelty  inflicted  on  slaves,  but  it  is  not  true  in  circumstances,  where  the  best 
possible  thing  a  man  can  do  for  his  slaves,  is  to  hold,  protect,  feed,  and  govern  them. 
Will  you  say,  'undo  every  burden  and  let  the  oppressed  go  free;'  but  the  people  I  have 
described  are  not  oppressed  by  their  owners.  If  their  present  owners  should  set  them 
free,  they  would  be  oppressed  by  others.  They  are  now  held  to  protect  them  from  op- 
pression, and  to  own  them  is  the  only  way  to  protect  them.  The  Church  has  never 
said  there  could  be  no  circumstances,  in  which  a  man  could  own  slaves,  and  yet  be  in- 
nocent— nay,  she  has  said  the  contrary."  Since  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  1784, 
he  represents  her  as  "teaching  those  who  could  put  away  their  slaves,  on  our  Lord's 
rule,  to  do  so,  and  also  teaching  those  who  could  not  thus  release  them,  to  conduct  to- 
wards them  as  the  Saviour  directed."  He  says  "the  address  of  the  General  Conference 
on  slavery  in  1800,  was  the  occasion  of  a  vast  amount  of  injury  both  to  them  and  the 
work."  Speaking  of  the  entire  history  of  the  Methodist  Societies  from  their  first  es- 
tablishment to  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  1784,  the  Bishop  remarks,  "Mr.  Wes- 
ley and  his  preachers  did  not,  at  that  time,  believe  it  was  a  sin  to  hold  slaves,  where 
the  laws  were  such  as  to  prevent  their  continuing  free  after  being  manumitted.  The 
language  they  employ  clearly  shows  that  it  was  their  opinion  that  their  people  might 
be  innocent  in  holding  slaves,  where  the  laws  did  not  permit  emancipation  on  Christian 
principles.  Mr.  Wesley  never  said  one  word,  that  I  can  find,  against  a  Christian  man's 
holding  his  slave  in  circumstances  where  he  could  not  put  him  away  without  injuring 
him.  And  the  fact  of  his  allowing  some  of  his  preachers  and  members  to  hold  slaves 
in  this  country,  for  several  years  before  our  Church  was  organized,  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  my  mind,  that  he  saw  that  nothing  better  could  be  done  for  the  slaves,  circum- 
stanced as  those  owners  were,  than  to  hold,  feed,  protect,  and  govern  them.  While  this 
state  of  things  continued  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  a  Bishop  and  two  Elders  for  this  coun- 
try, sending  them  over  to  organize  his  preachers  and  societies  into  an  Episcopal  Church, 
at  the  same  time  appointing  Mr.  Asbury  joint  superintendent  with  Dr.  Coke,  when  he 


27 

must  have  known,  thai  many,  both  of  his  preachers  and  members  in  this  country,  held 
slaves."  Again,  "I  have  been  severely  condemned,  for  expressing  an  unwillingness,  to 
put  a  resolution  to  vote,  in  an  Annual  Conference,  tending  to  censure  our  brethren  in 
the  South,  for  doing  the  same  thing  which  Mr.  Wesley  allowed  their  fathers  to  do, 
when  in  connection  with  him,  and  when,  also,  he  possessed  the  full  power  to  prevent 
their  donig  so,  or  to  expel  them."  Methodist  Societies  were  formed  in  the  West  In- 
dies about  the  time  they  were  in  the  United  States,  and  Bishop  H.  remarks,  "they  were 
under  Mr.  Wesley's  superintendence,  and  from  the  best  information  I  have  been  able  to 
obtain,  slave  owners  were  admitted  into  those  Societies.  Mr.  Wesley  believed  St. 
Paul  permitted  Philemon  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church  at  Colosse,  while  he  held  Onesi- 
mus  a  slate.  That  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  Mr.  Benson,  Dr.  Coke,  and  Mr.  Watson  also  believed 
that  the  Apostles  permitted  slave  owners  in  peculiar  circumstances,  to  be  members  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  is  a  fact  too  plainly  declared  in  their  writings,  to  admit  of  a  doubt. 
These  authors  must  have  believed,  that  the  Apostles  knew,  that  the  Christians  of  their 
day  were  under  such  laws  or  circumstances,  that  the  only  thing  such  of  them  as  held 
slaves  could  possibly  do  for  them,  according  to  our  Lord's  rule,  was  to  hold,  protect, 
feed,  and  govern  them.  They  all  believed  that  in  some  circumstances,  men  might  own 
slaves  and  yet  be  Christians.  Though  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  always  permit- 
ted slave  owners  to  remain  in  her  communion,  where  they  could  not  put  away  their 
slaves  without  violating  the  Saviour's  rule,  she  labored  hard  and  long,  by  various  rules 
and  resolutions,  and  other  efforts,  all  within  the  great  principles  above  laid  down,  to 
prepare  the  way  for,  and  finally  to  accomplish  a  universal  emancipation,  especially  in 
the  Church.  But  she  found,  the  more  she  exerted  herself  on  this  subject,  the  more  hin- 
drances were  thrown  in  her  way,  by  legal  enactments,  popular  excitements,  and  by  per- 
secution. She  found  that,  by  trying  to  release  the  bodies  cf  the  slaves,  she  was  hindered 
from  using  the  means  to  save  their  souls,  and  that  instead  of  removing  their  burdens, 
she  was  made  thG  occasion  of  increasing  them.  The  Church  found  herself  driven  to 
this  alternative,  either  to  cease  using  direct  means  to  accomplish  universal  emancipa- 
tion, or  abandon  the  largest  portion  of  the  Southern  country."  That  is,  the  Church 
was  driven  to  compromise,  as  the  only  possible  mode  of  doing  any  thing  to  accomplish 
the  object  it  had  in  view.  Bishop  H.  says,  "she  determined  to  do  all  in  her  power,  to 
save  both  slave  and  master.  By  these"  (compromise,)  "measures,  the  Church  has  held 
a  powerful  influence  over  thousands  of  both  colors — she  has  prevented  a  vast  amount  of 
injuries,  which  otherwise,"  (without such  compromise,)  "would  have  been  inflicted  on  the 
poor  slaves.  The  civil  government  of  that  country,  (the  South.)  is  not  in  the  hands  of 
the  Methodists,  and  further,  if  they  were  so  disposed,  to  attempt  to  control  it  on  this 
subject,  would  only  hinder  their  great  work,  and  bring  heavier  afflictions  on  ':God's 
suffering  poor."  Let  our  Lord's  rule  be  enforced,  till  the  rulers  and  the  great  body  of 
the  people,  of  both  colors,  feel  its  influence,  and  then  will  the  great  Jubilee  come,  and 
it  is  my  opinion,  it  will  not  come  before,  unless  it  be  brought  about  by  war,  Mood,  and 
revolution.  You  cannot  fail  of  perceiving,  that  I  am  on  the  ancient  Methodist  ground, 
in  relation  to  this  subject — the  ground  trodden  by  Wesley,  Coke,  Clarke,  Benson,  Wat- 
son, Asbury,  Whatcoat,  Garrettson,  and  many  other  \viss  and  holy  men,  who  now  rest 
in  Heaven."  In  review  of  the  whole,  the  Bishop  soys  of  the  Church,  "she  has  chang- 
ed her  measures,"  (intending  compromise,)  "from  time  to  time,  as  the  changes  of  circum- 
stances seemed  to  require,  but  never  her  principles."  This  is  enough — we  want  no  more. 
This  extract  of  manly  and  luminous  statement  and  reasoning,  from  Bishop  Hedding, 
is  a  true  and  living  picture  of  "Methodism  and  slavery,"  and  well  worthy  the  attention 
of  tb«  whole  Church;  nor  is  lucre  any  thin;  in  it,  variant  from  the  mass  tf  opinion  and 


28 

evidence,  we  have  submitted  from  the  standard  writers,  the  Bishops,  and  the  General  Con- 
ferences of  the  Church.  It  is  emphatically  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the  creed  of 
Methodism  respecting  slavery.  It  was  upon  the  compromise  principles  of  the  Bishop's 
argument,  that  Dr.  Coke  became  the  owner  of  slaves,  by  actual  and  deliberate  pur- 
chase, as  superintendent,  under  Wesley,  of  the  West  India  missions.  It  was  too.  in 
precise  accordance  with  this  general  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  General  Conference 
of  1840  said,  '-as  emancipation,  under  such  circumstances,  (that  is,  in  States  where  it 
is  not  practicable,  so  as  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of  liberty  to  the  freed  slave,)  is  not  a 
requirement  of  Discipline,  it  cannot  be  made  a  condition  of  eligibility  to  office."  None 
need  be  told,  that  contrary  to  this  official  assurance,  the  last  General  Conference  did  make 
emancipation,  under  the  very  circumstances  described,  a  necessary  condition  of  such 
eligibility.  Again,  the  Conference  says,  "an  appeal  to  the  policy  and  practice  of  the 
Church,  for  fifty  years  past,  will  show  incontestibly,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the 
convictions  of  the  Church,  with  regard  to  this  great  evil,  the  nature  and  tendency  of 
the  system  of  slavery,  it  has  never  insisted  upon  emancipation,  in  contravention  of 
civil  authority,  and  it  therefore  appears  to  be  a  well  settled  and  long  established  prin- 
ciple, in  the  polity  of  the  Church,  that  no  ecclesiastical  disabilities  are  intended  to  ensue, 
either  to  the  ministers  or  members  of  the  Church,  in  those  Slates  where  the  civil  au- 
thority forbids  emancipation."  In  relation  to  this  grave  decision  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, who  can  help  seeing  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  directly  contradict- 
ed, contravened  and  laid  it  aside,  while  ecclesiastical  disability,  under  the  precise  cir- 
cumstances excepted.  was  officially  decreed.  Thus  proving,  as  charged  by  the  Protest, 
that  the  good  faith  of  the  General  Conference  of  May  last,  is  placed  in  a  very  question- 
able point  of  view,  in  the  cases  of  both  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew.  The  General 
Conference  of  1840  declares  further,  "that  in  the  Discipline,  we  have  two  distinct 
classes  of  legislative  provision,  in  relation  to  slavery,  the  one  applying  to  owners  of 
slaves,  where  emancipation  is  practicable,  consistently  with  the  safety  and  interest  of 
masters  and  slaves,  and  the  other,  where  it  is  impracticable,  without  endangering  such 
safety  and  these  interests,  on  the  part  of  both.  In  the  latter  case  no  disability  attaches 
on  the  ground  of  slavery,  because  the  disability  attaching  in  other  cases,  is  here  remov- 
ed by  special  provision  of  law."  Contrast  this  declaration  with  the  action  of  the  late 
General  Conference,  and  that  action  will  be  found,  a  direct  violation  of  an  express 
guaranty  by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church.  The  same  General  Conference  con- 
tinues, "may  not  the  principles  and  causes,  giving  birth  to  great  moral  and  politi- 
cal systems  or  institutions,  be  regarded  as  evil,  even  essentially  evil,  in  every  primary 
aspect  of  the  subject,  without  the  implication  of  moral  obliquity,  on  the  part  of  those 
involuntarily  connected  with  such  systems  and  institutions,  and  providentially  involved 
in  their  operation  and  consequences?  May  not  a  system  of  this  kind,  be  jealously  re- 
garded, as  in  itself  more  or  less  inconsistent  with  natural  right  and  moral  rectitude, 
without  the  imputation  of  guilt,  and  derelict  motive,  in  the  instance  of  those,  who 
without  any  choice  or  purpose  of  their  own,  are  necessarily  subjected  to  its  influence 
and  sway?"  And  if  so,  in  the  case  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  what  but  a  com- 
promise course  can  be  pursued  by  the  Church,  without  a  direct  invasion  of  civil  and 
religious  rights,  growing  out  of  long  established  relations,  consecrated  by  the  sancti- 
ties of  conventional  adjustment  in  the  great  national  compact? 

About  the  mere  term  compromise,  I  am  not  disposed  to  contend  —  in  fact  care  nothing 
about  it.  It  was  used  in  tho  Protest  as  typing  the  truth  of  history,  and  so  used  we 
yield  nothing  assumed  in  the  Protest.  The  use  of  the  term  may  not  have  been  frimiiiar 
in  the  -North.  But  that  it  has  been  in  familiar  use,  among  well  informed 


29 

preachers  and  laymen  in  the  South,  for  a  long  term  of  years,  I  know  to  be  the  fact,  ana 
certainly  did  not  know,  when  the  Protest  was  written,  that  this  was  not  the  case  in  the 
North.  I  had  heard  it  used,  as  I  have  shown,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  by  fathers 
id  leaders  of  the  Church;  and  not  dreaming  that  either  the  term,  or  the  fact  it  was 
used  to  type,  would  be  questioned  in  any  quarter,  it  was  used  without  consultation  with 
any  one.  To  what  purpose,  and  with  what  claim  to  historical  correctness,  the  question 
has  been  mooted  by  the  Reply,  and  in  one  or  more  of  the  Northern  papers  of  the 
Church,  let  those  concerned  determine  at  their  leisure.  A  Northern  man  who  was  in 
the  General  Conferences  of  1796, 1800, 1804,  and  1808,  says,  in  a  letter  before  me,  "when 
we  met  in  General  Conference,  May  1808,  and  the  report  came  from  the  South,  what 
great  injury  had  been  done  to  the  progress  of  religion  among  the  slaves  and  the  free, 
the  North  and  South  mutually  agreed  to  compromise  on  that  subject,  and  every  thin<^ 
relating  to  the  question  of  slavery,  (as  to  private  members,)  was  stricken  from  the  Dis- 
cipline, and  each  Annual  Conference  authorized  to  form  its  own  rules  and  regulations 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,"  (in  relation  to  the  preachers.)  "Why  the  compromise  of 
308,  was  ever  violated,  or  by  what  influence  the  right  of  each  Annual  Conference  was 
taken  away,  I  am  not  able  to  say.  The  course  pursued  from  1812  to  1844,  comes  within 
your  own  knowledge." 

Another  member  of  all  the  General  Conferences  from  1796  to  1S08,  says,  in  a  letter 
with  reference  to  the  legislation  of  1804,  and  an  attempt  to  adjust  the  difficulties  of  the 
Church  on  the  Slavery  question,  "we  got  the  compromise  act  passed:"  and,  a^ain 
"the  compromise  act  passed  at  that  time,  I  think  was  sufficient  to  satisfy  every  one  up' 
on  the  subject,  North  and  South."  Another  member  of  every  Genera]  Conference  from 
1796  to  1812,  and  who  sides  with  the  North  in  this  controversy,  remarks,  in  a  letter  re- 
ceived from  him,  "as  to  the  conservative  rules,  I  have  no  recollection  when  they  were 
not ;  for  what  else  could  we  do?  We  had  no  right  to  make  rules  in  opposition  to  the  laws. 
As  to  its  being  middle  ground,  on  which  the  North  and  South  met,  by  way  of  compro- 
mise, I  always  thought  it  ground  on  which  we  met  of  necessity,  not  choice."  Still 
they  met  there,  and  the  fact  of  compromise  is  admitted.  Another  says,  "surely  it  is 
manifest  that  the  whole  course  of  our  legislation  on  Slavery  has  been  a  compromise 
The  constant  effort,  indeed,  from  the  beginning,  has  been  to  establish  and  enforce  the 
Old  England  and  New  England  doctrine  and  practice  of  abolition  ;  but  it  was  ever  found 
to  be  impracticable,  and  while  abandoned  in  practice,  it  was  still  contrived  to  keep  on 
record  the  testimony  of  that  creed."  No  comment  is  necessary  to  show  the  value  of 
such  proofs,  as  establishing  the  main  position  of  the  Protest  on  this  topic.  These  men 
speak  of  different  compromise  acts,  and  the  Protest  assumes  these  different  acts  often 
changed  and  modified  from  1800,  but  especially  1804  to  1816,  as  constituting,  in  sum 
the  compromise  law  of  the  Church  on  Slavery.  The  reasons  of  the  legislation,  to  which 
these  men  allude,  are  distinctly  recognized  by  the  General  Conference  of  1840  "It 
nust  be  expected  that  great  variety  of  opinions  and  diversity  of  conviction  and  feeling 
will  be  found  to  exist  in  relation  to  slavery,  and  most  urgently  call  for  the  exercise  of 
mutual  forbearance  and  reciprocal  good  will  on  the  part  of  all  concerned."  With  opin- 
ions so  variant,  and  conviction  and  feeling  so  diverse,  how  can  men  live  and  act  togeth- 
er in  peace  and  unity,  unless  upon  the  ground  of  compromise? 

Before  dismissing  the  topic  of  compromise,  we  have  other  important  views  to  submit 
on  the  subject.  We  maintain,  that  the  moral  character  of  slavery  in  the  United  States 
connects,  essentially,  with  its  civil  and  political  aspects  and  relations,  and  that  apart 
:rom  the  latter,  the  former  cannot  be  justlv  conceived  of.  Every  where  in  the  Bible, 
and  it  i«  breugbt  to  view  directly  or  allusively  in  hundreds  of  instances,  slavery  is  re-  ' 

I  '-      >  :  %    '*U    •'../  :" 


30 

_ 

garded  as  a  civil  regulation,  and  all  ecclesiastical  interference  should  treat  it  as  such. 
In  the  United  States,  slavery  is  mixed  up  with  organic  State  relations,  and  involves  ori- 
ginal jural  rights.  These  relations  and  rights  are  ordained  and  declared  by  the  Con- 
stitution creating  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  to  be  both  Federal  and  Nation- 
al, pertaining  in  part  to  the  States  confederating,  and  partly  to  the  Nation,  as  compos- 
ed of  the  contracting  parties.  The  rights  arising  out  of  the  relations  in  question,  as 
it  respects  Slavery,  are,  by  constitutional  arrangement,  under  the  protection  of  the  fed- 
eral power  and  supreme  law  of  the  Nation,  and  any  citizen,  or  association  of  citizens, 
invading  these,  in  any  form,  or  so  acting  as  to  reduce  their  force  or  value,  is,  incontes- 
tibly,  guilty  of  a  civil,  and  we  maintain  by  consequence,  a  moral  trespass.  By  the  com- 
pact of  the  constitution,  slavery  is  made  an  integral  part  of  the  basis  of  Federal  and 
National  representation,  and  this  as  much  by  the  act  of  the  North  as  the  South.  Against 
their  wishes  and  remonstrances,  especially  Virginia  and  Georgia,  it  was  introduced  in- 
to the  Colonies  under  the  high  sanction  of  British  Law.  It  is  strictly  and  essentially 
of  jural  origin  in  the  United  States,  and  based  in  the  government  of  the  country  upon 
the  legislation  of  National  Sovereignty.  It  is  an  accredited  principle — a  well  known 
condition  of  the  national  compact,  without  which  it  is  equally  well  known  no  Union  of 
the  Slates,  North  and  South,  would  or  could  have  taken  place.  Slavery  is  only  provin- 
cial in  view  of  geographical  locality;  in  all  its  more  important  aspects  it  is  Federal  and 
National  in  its  relations  and  bearings.  Viewing  the  North  and  South,  as  each  a  collec- 
tion of  States,  they  have  long  existed  distinct  historical  parties  on  the  subject  of  slave- 
ry— parties  by  constitutional  and  legislative  arrangement — parties  by  compacts  of  law, 
and  different  and  opposite  judicial  determinations  proceeding  upon  them  :  each  legislating 
about  the  negro,  slave  and  free,  not  only  in  diverse,  but  antagonist  directions — opposed 
more  or  less  in  interest,  feeling,  policy  and  purpose  ;  and  is  it  supposed  that  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  could  diffuse  her  influence,  and  marshal  her  500,000  ministers  and 
members  on  either  side  of  the  line  without  the  existence,  if  not  formal  organization, 
of  parties]  The  conflicts  in  every  General  Conference  since  1792,  prove  the  existence 
of  such  parties  in  the  Church ;  and  their  separate  principles  have  been  developed  and 
modified,  from  time  to  time,  by  various  forms  of  repeated  practical  application,  until 
they  have  expanded,  North  and  South,  into  something  like  distinct  systems,  involving 
belief  and  feeling,  strong  and  tenacious,  and  deeply  interwoven  with  the  practical  life 
and  social  existence  of  the  people.  It  has  been  a  result  as  proper  as  it  was  natural  and 
necessary,  that  the  Church,  in  each  of  these  great  national  sections,  has  not  been  ar- 
rayed against  the  policy  of  the  State,  but  more  or  less  conformed  to  it.  In  the  Metho- 
dist Church,  the  parlies  in  question  have  always  been  distinguished  by  other  character- 
istics than  those  already  mentioned.  The  Northern  division  of  the  Church  has  been,  to 
a  great  extent,  a  mcvemenl  parly,  while  the  Southern  has  been  stationary  and  conserva- 
tive. That  the  South  has  been  most  impulsive  and  excitable,  is  admitted.  They  have 
nn  interest  at  stake,  not  felt  in  the  North.  But  that  the  South  has  ever  attempted  agi- 
tation, or  engaged  in  discussion  or  controversy  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  except  in 
self-defence,  or  when  assailed  from  some  quarter,  will  hardly  be  assumed  by  any  one. 
In  the  history  of  attempts  at  legislative  change,  it  will  be  found  that  nearly  every  pro- 
position for  new  nnd  further  interference  has  come  from  the  North,  while  the  South  has 
generally  simply  resisted.  The  North  has  proceeded  from  one  extreme  nnd  extrava- 
gance to  another,  in  the  denunciation  of  slavery  as  a  wrong,  an  evil  ;  the  South  admit- 
ting nnd  feeling  it  to  be  an  evil,  entailed  upon  them  by  the  ancestral  governments  of 
the  country,  and  asking  for  a  remedy  that  would  not  be  a  greater  evil.  Meanwile, 
Southern  Methodism  has  doce,  even  for  the  frtedvn  of  th«  negro,  a  thousaud  fold  inor« 


31 

than  Northern,  beside  what  has  been  done  for  the  earthly  comfort  and  final  happiness  of 
the  slave,  as  such.  The  Church,  like  the  State,  has  always  presented  dual  antagonis- 
tic forces — different  primitive  types  of  action,  North  and  South,  on  the  subject  of  Slave- 
ry, and  until  lately,  a  third  force  or  type  distinct  from  each,  but  partaking  more  or  less 
of  the  character  of  both,  has  come  in  as  a  bond  of  mediation  and  intercourse  between 
the  two,  and  holding  both  in  check,  has  given  vigour  and  balance  to  the  social  organi- 
zation. But  this  third  conservative  power  having  coalesced  with  the  more  extreme 
Northern  party,  not  as  abolitionists,  it  may  be,  but  acting  with  them  as  a  common 
force  or  party  against  the  South,  the  equilibrium  is  destroyed,  and  the  necessity  of  sep- 
aration has  been  unequivocally  avowed  by  both  parties  in  General  Conference  assem- 
bled. It  is  admitted  as  a  general  rule,  as  it  regards  State  relations,  that  the  North  has 
ostensibly  acted  upon  the  principle  and  policy  of  concession  toward  the  South  respect- 
ing slavery;  but  this  was  originally  for  a  bonus  consideration— was  matter  of  Federal 
contract,  without  which  the  South  would  not  have  confederated  at  all.  Did  the  North 
concede  to  the  South?  So  did  the  South  to  the  North,  which  found  its  indemnity  in  South- 
ern concession  in  relation  to  navigation  and  commerce,  and  the  provisional  right  of  di- 
rect taxation,  in  view  of  the  National  revenue.  If  it  be  said  this  latter  right  has  rare- 
ly been  asserted,  still  it  does  not  affect  the  argument,  for  the  North  has  had  greatly 
more  than  its  equivalent  in  other  respects,  especially  in  the  preferred  advantages  of  the 
tariff  arrangements  of  the  government  and  country,  ever  since  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution, so  that  the  North  has  fully  realized  its  own  price  for  the  concessions  purchas- 
ed by  the  South  in  regard  to  slavery,  of  which  we  are  so  often  and  sometimes  not  very 
graciously  reminded. 

When,  therefore,  it  is  recollected  that  every  fraction  of  concession  we  have  had  from 
the  North,  is  in  redemption  of  a  conventional  pledge,  the  primary  conditions  of  which 
have  been  realized  to  the  letter,  by  the  North,  the  obligations  of  the  South  may  appear 
the  less  oppressive,  as  the  North  refused  all  concession  that  did  not  tend,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  promote  Northern  interest.  In  view  of  this  compromise  arrangement,  the 
North  and  South  are  mutually  bound  to  compliance  with  the  stipulations  specified,  and 
unless  the  North  pursue  a  course  in  relation  to  slavery,  tending  to  damage  Southern  in- 
terest, the  South  is  certainly  bound,  in  honor  and  good  faith,  to  do  nothing  in  any  way 
calculated  to  reduce  the  value  of  what  was  offered,  as  an  equivalent  for  Northern  con- 
cession in  relation  to  Southern  slavery.  And  as  this  matter  is  vitally  connected  with 
the  more  cardinal  bearings  of  the  present  controversy,  it  may  be  proper  to  examine  the 
subject  a  little  more  at  length. 

The  abolition  of  slavery  in  Pennsylvania  took  place  in  1780,  and  other  portions  of 
the  North  were  strongly  inclined,  from  various  reasons,  to  a  similar  course.  The  ab- 
olition movements  of  England,  about  this  time,  in  connection  with  the  excitement  and 
movement  in  Pennsylvania,  and  further  North,  operated  as  motives— as  inducements, 
with  the  English  Methodist  Preachers,  recently  come  to  this  country,  to  agitate  the 
question  in  the  infant  societies  they  had  raised,  and  of  course  controlled;  andr  accord- 
ingly, in  the  first  year  of  Pennsylvania  abolition,  we  have  the  first  rule,  on  Slavery 
among  the  Methodists  in  Europe  or  America,  religious  zeal  being  quickened  by  the  po- 
litical excitement  and  agitation  of  the  times.  A  very  dissimilar  state  of  things  exist- 
ing at  the  time,  in  the  South,  from  that  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  North  generally;  the 
movement  was  resisted  there,  alike  by  Church  and  State,  and  hence  the  formation  of 
parties  in  both,  which  ha\-e  continued  ever  since. 

Robinson  on  "Slavery  and  the  Constitution,"  remarks,  that  "at  the  time  of  the  Fede- 
ral Convention,  1787,  the  experience  of  the  States  South  of  Pennsylvania,  was  guch  as 


32 

to  produce  distrust  of  their  Northern  brethren,  as  to  the  safety  of  their  property  in 
slaves."  Rawle  on  the  Constitution,  referring  to  the  same  period,  observes,  "it  Wj^s 
no  easy  task  to  reconcile  the  local  interests  and  discordant  prepossessions  of  the  differ- 
ent sections  of  the  United  States,  but  the  business  was  accomplished  by  acts  of  conces- 
sion and  mutual  condescension."  Mr.  Madison  says,  "the  Convention  found  difficul- 
ties not  to  be  described.  Mutual  deference  and  concession  were  absolutely  necessary. 
Had  they  been  inflexibly  tenacious  of  their  individual  opinions,  they  would  never  have 
concurred  ;  it  was  difficult,  extremely  difficult,  to  agree  to  any  general  system.  With- 
out it,  (concession  as  to  slave  property,)  the  Southern  States  never  would  have  entered 
into  the  Union  of  America."  Defending  the  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  Gover- 
nor Randolph  says,  "the  Southern  States  conceived  their  property  (in  slaves)  to  be  se- 
cure by  this  arrangement."  Patrick  Henry,  arguing  the  necessity  of  a  constitutional 
guaranty  to  bind  the  North,  states  "a  decided  majority  of  the  States — of  Congress — is 
North — the  slaves  are  South."  Chief  Justice  Tighlman,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State,  says,  "whatever  may  be  our  private  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  it  is  well  known  that  our  Southern  brethren  would  not  have  consent- 
ed to  become  parties  to  the  Constitution,  unless  their  property  in  slaves  had  been  secur- 
ed." Chancellor  Kent,  speaking  of  this  constitutional  arrangement,  observes,  "it  was 
the  result  of  necessity,  and  grew  out  of  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  slavery  in  a  por- 
tion of  our  country.  The  evil  has  been  of  too  long  standing,  and  is  too  extensive 
and  too  deep  rooted  to  be  speedily  eradicated,  or  even  to  be  discussed  without  great 
judgment  [and  discretion."  The  Hon.  H.  Clay  stated,  in  debate  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  "the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  never  could  have  been  formed  up- 
on the  principle  of  investing  the  General  Government  with  authority  to  abolish  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  at  pleasure.  It  never  can  be  continued  for  a  single  day,  if  the  ex- 
ercise of  such  power  be  assumed  or  usurped."  Speaking  of  the  general  subject  of 
slavery,  as  sanctioned  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  the  American  Quarterly  Review 
says,  "the  slave  holding  States  (alone)  have  the  right,  the  power,  arid  the  capacity  to 
apply  the  remedy." 

The  whole  current  of  political  and  judicial  opinion,  in  the  entire  history  of  the  gov- 
ernment, treats  the  subject  as  originally  adjusted,  and  only  susceptible  of  being  man- 
aged by  compromise.  The  Hon.  D.  Webster  asks,  "if  we  begin  to  disturb  the  balance 
of  power,  (on  the  subject  of  slavery,)  where  shall  we  stop!"  Justice  Shaw,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, says,  "the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  partakes  both  of  the  nature  of  a 
treaty  and  of  the  form  of  a  government.  '  Before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the 
States  were,  to  a  certain  extent,  sovereign  and  independent,  and  were  in  a  condition  to 
settle  the  terms  on  which  they  would  form  a  more  perfect  union.  The  constitution  of 
the  United  States  regards  the  Stntes,  to  a  certain  extent,  as  sovereign  and  independent 
communities,  with  full  powers  to  make  their  own  laws  and  regulate  their  own  policy, 
and  fixes  the  terms  upon  which  their  intercourse  with  each  other  shall  be  conducted. 
Slavery  is  not  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations.  The  Constitution  affords  effectual  security 
to  the  owners  of  slaves.  The  States  have  a  plenary  power  to  make  all  laws  necessary 
for  the  regulation  of  slavery,  and  the  rights  of  slave  owners,  while  the  slaves  remain 
within  their  territorial  limits."  Every  Northern  man,  every  abolitionist  even,  where- 
ever  found,  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  is  a  party  in  solemn  and  public  treaty  with 
every  Southern  man— every  slaveholder — as  the  other  party,  not  to  disturb  the  right  of 
property  in  this  respect,  nor  in  any  way  thwart  the  intended  purposes  of  its  constitution- 
al guaranty ;  and  by  how  far  this  may  be  done,  by  so  far  the  obligations  of  good  faith 
and  citizenship  are  not  only  departed  from,  but  violated.  Justice  Story  says,  "the  slave 


33 


holding  States  insisted  on  a  representation  strictly  according  to  numbers ;  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  contended  for  a  representation  according  to  the  number  of  free  per- 
sons only.  The  controversy  was  full  of  excitement,  and  was  maintained  with  so  much 
obstinacy  on  each  side,  that  the  Convention  was  more  than  one*  on  the  eve  of  dissolu- 
tion. At  length  the  present  system  was  adopted  by  way  of  compromise;  it  was  a  ne- 
cessary concession  to  the  spirit  of  conciliation  on  which  the  Union  was  founded.  View- 
ed as  a  measure  of  compromise,  it  is  entitled  to  great  praise."  And  certainly  those 
who  fail  to  act  upon  it,  (whether  in  or  out  of  the  Church,)  are  entitled  to  great  blame. 
The  Hon.  Edward  Everett  says,  "it  was  deemed  a  point  of  the  highest  policy,  by  the 
non-slaveholding  States,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  slavery  in  their  sister  States, 
to  enter  with  them  into  the  present  Union,  on  the  basis  of  the  constitulional  compact. 
That  no  union  could  have  been  formed  on  any  other  basis,  is  a  fact  of  historical  notori- 
ety, and  it  is  asserted  in  terms  by  Gen.  Hamilton,  in  the  reported  debates  of  the  New 
York  Convention  for  adopting  the  Constitution.  This  compact,  expressly  recognizes 
the  existence  of  slavery,  and  concedes  to  the  States  where  it  prevails,  the  most  import- 
ant rights  and  privileges  connected  with  it.  Every  thing  that  tends  to  disturb  these  re- 
lations, is  at  war  with  its  spirit,  and  whatever,  by  direct  or  necessary  operation  is  cal- 
culated to  excite  an  insurrection  among  slaves,  has  been  held,  by  highly  respectable 
legal  authority,  an  offence  against  the  peace  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  may  be  pro- 
secuted as  a  misdemeanor  at  common  law.  Our  Fathers,  the  Adamses,  the  Hancocks, 
and  other  eminent  patriots  of  the  Revolution,  although  fresh  from  the  battles  of  liber- 
ty, and  approaching  the  question  as  essentially  an  open  one,  deemed  it,  nevertheless, 
expedient  to  enter  into  a  Union  with  our  brothers  of  the  slaveholding  States,  on  the 
principle  of  forbearance  and  toleration  on  this  subject."  Dr.  Frost  says,  "it  was  a 
compromise  of  conflicting  interests." 

Chief  Justice  Parker,  of  Massachusetts,  holds  the  following  language  with  regard  to 
the  slave  holding  States  :  "They  might  have  kept  aloof  from  the  Constitution.  That 
instrument  was  a  compromise.  It  was  a  compact  by  which  all  are  bound.  We  then 
entered  into  an  agreement  that  slaves  should  be  considered  as  property.  Slavery  would 
still  have  continued  if  no  Constitution  had  been  made."  Chief  Justice  Robertson,  al- 
luding to  the  adjustment  of  the  slavery  question  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
says,  "it  was  the  subject  of  a  sacred  compromise,  which  it  would  be  neither  safe  nor 
just  for  either  party,  without  the  other's  consent,  ever  to  disturb."  Alluding  to  the 
same  subject,  the  Edinburgh  Review  observes,  "American  Statesmen  labored,  from  the 
first,  under  two  great  difficulties,  against  which  they  have  struggled  on,  by  compromise 
and  evasion — we  mean  the  questions  arising  out  of  slavery,  &c."  Chief  Justice  Jay 
confirms  the  general  opinion,  "the  Convention  who  formed  and  recommended  the  new 
Constitution,  had  an  arduous  task  to  perform,  especially  as  local  interests,  and,  in  some 
measure,  local  prejudices  were  to  be  accommodated.  Several  of  the  States  conceived 
that  restraints  on  slavery  might  be  too  rapid,  to  consist  with  their  particular  circum- 
stances, and  the  importance  of  union  rendered  it  necessary  that  their  wishes  on  that 
head  should,  in  some  degree,  be  gratified."  How  they  were  consulted,  and  what  ad- 
justment took  place,  we  have  seen.  Alluding  to  this  topic,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Freeman,  of 
the  North,  remarks,  of  the  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  "it  concerns  rights  of  pro- 
perty secured  by  the  Federal  compact,  upon  which  our  liberties  mainly  depend.  It  is  a 
part  of  the  collection  of  political  rights,  the  least  invasion  of  any  one  of  which  would,  of 
course,  impair  the  tenure  by  which  every  other  is  held.  When  the  Federal  compact  was 
formed,  the  entire  abolition  of  slavery  was  a  favorite  object  with  many,  but  they  knew  that 
this  or  the  Union  must  be  surrendered*  They  had  no  alternative  but  to  leave  it  as  they 


34 

found  it  existing  in  the  South,  or  fail  of  the  great  desideratum  of  a  Union  of  the  States. 
The  legal  construction  is,  that  the  South,  who  hold  slaves,  retain  the  right  of  exclusive 
regulation  over  them ;  which  right  the  United  States  cannot  touch."  He  adds,  "any 
measures,  on  our  part,  of  a  coercive  nature,  or  calculated  to  disturb  the  domestic  ar- 
rangements of  the  South,  would  be  a  violation  of  our  political  contract,  and  of  good 
faith.  Whatever  we  do,  should  be  so  done  as  not  to  put  in  jeopardy  the  peace  of  the 
slave  holding  States.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  Constitution  is  violated  by  any 
action  endangering  the  slave  holding  portion  of  our  country— a  higher  law  than  the 
Constitution  forbids  this  unholy  interference."  A  judicious  observer  remarks,  of  the 
gradual  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  "in  undertaking  a  work  of  this  mag- 
nitude, compromises  will  be  found  as  necessary  as  they  were  in  forming  the  Federal 
compact."  An  influential  English  Journal  has  recently  attempted  to  prove,  at  length, 
that  the  "only  barrier  to  general  emancipation,  in  the  United  States,  is  the  Federal  Un- 
ion, which  defies  alike  humanity  and  reform."  Testimonies  to  this  effect  might  be  mul- 
tiplied indefinitely,  but  it  cannot  be  necessary. 

Such,  then,  is  the  true  position  of  the  North  on  this  question,  nor  can  they  separate 
their  moral  from  their  civil  relations,  as  paities  to  the  Constitution:  they  are  all,  by 
deliberate  consent,  connected  with  slavery,  and  if  they  get  rid  of  it,  without  the  consent 
of  the  Southern  States,  unless  these  shall  violate  the  national  compact,  they  get  rid  of 
truth,  honor,  and  good  character,  at  the  same  time.  It  is,  too,  a  well  understood  prin- 
ciple of  law  and  morality,  in  the  construction  of  compromises,  that  the  temper  of  the 
parties  which  led  to  compromise,  remains  one  of  its  conditions;  and  either  party  of- 
fending, in  this  respect,  violates  an  important  obligation  contracted  in  becoming  a  par- 
ty. Let  this  be  applied  to  the  slavery  question,  and  its  application  will  be  seen  at 
once.  Legislative  contracts  are  common  in  all  governments,  having  the  force,  some- 
times, of  treaty,  and  sometimes  of  compromise,  and  often  both.  That  this  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  national  compact,  binding  every  citizen,  church  members  as  well  as  others, 
it  would  be  worse  than  stupid  to  deny.  That  the  result  of  all  legislation  in  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  has  been  a  standing  law  of  forbearance,  conformably  to  civil  obligation, 
has  been  shown  with  equal  clearness,  thus  showing  that  the  compromise  of  the  Protest 
has  been  the  household  laiv  of  the  Church  ever  since  the  subsidence  of  the  first  aboli« 
tion  excitement,  under  the  early  English  Preachers.  Abstract  law,  involving  compro- 
mise, can  only  be  carried  into  effect  by  acts  of  kindness,  and  the  ministry  of  the  affec- 
tions, without  which  it  is  a  lifeless  text,  unexplained  by  living  example,  and  must  fail 
to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  its  enactment.  This  view  of  the  subject  applies  equally 
to  North  and  South,  and  should  be  well  considered  by  both. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  decided,  and  is  a  commonly  received  truth,  both  in  common 
law  and  equity  jurisprudence,  that  a  simple  decree,  in  form  of  law,  may  be  proved  a 
treaty  compact  or  compromise,  by  showing  the  original  relative  position  of  the  parties 
interested,  and  the  obvious  indications  of  purpose  and  intention  as  inferable  from  the 
external  circumstances,  leading  to  the  action  assumed  and  admitted.  Law,  viewed  in 
the  light  of  reason,  purpose,  motive,  should  always  be  explained  by  the  context ;  that 
is,  the  circumstances  giving  it  birth.  This  is  what  the  Protest  meant  by  the  reasons  of 
law,  instead  of  the  strange  misconceptions  of  the  Reply.  In  abatement  of  the  force  of 
this  reasoning,  it  has  been  urged,  with  some  show  of  plausibility,  that,  mixed  up  with 
the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  was  the  conventional  understanding,  that  the 
South  should  address  itself  to  the  work  of  emancipation,  after  1808,  as  it  had  not  done 
before.  In  reply  to  this,  three  facts  are  especially  worthy  of  notice.  1st,  A  perma- 
nent provision  of  the  Constitution  contemplates  end  authorizes  a  different  result.  2d> 


35 

What  is  assumed,  was  long  and  tenaciously  exacted  as  a  condition  of  Union,  and  per- 
emptorily refused  by  the  South,  whether  in  whole  or  in  part — the  South  refusing  to  con- 
federate, unless  the  control  of  the  difficulty  should  be  left  to  the  States  directly  involv- 
ed in  it,  without  the  right  of  other  States  to  interfere  in  any  way.  But.  3d,  It  is  well 
known  that  a  large  portion  of  the  South  were  favorable  to  gradual  emancipation,  provi- 
ded any  disposition  could  be  made  of  the  free  black  population,  consistent  with  the 
welfare  of  the  States  giving  them  freedom.  It  was  early  ascertained,  however,  that 
both  the  old  and  the  new  free  States  were  inexorably  resolved  to  exclude  the  free  black 
population,  as  far  as  possible,  from  their  limits,  and  throw  the  whole  burden  upon  the 
South,  although  the  slave  trade  of  the  North  had  been  the  principal  means  of  filling 
the  South  with  slavery;  and  this  state  of  things  imposed  upon  the  South  the  necessity, 
and  gave  them  the  right,  of  managing  this  most  difficult  question  in  the  best  way  they 
could,  in  view  of  the  common  welfare  of  all  concerned. 

On  tins  subject,  Mr.  Webster  remarks,  "In  my  opinion  the  domestic  slavery  of  the 
Southern  States  is  a  subject  within  the  exclusive  control  of  the  States  themselves,  and 
this,  I  am  sure,  is  the  opinion  of  the  North.  Congress  has  no  authority  to  interfere 
in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of  them,  in  any  of  the  States.  This 
was  so  resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  when  Congress  sat  in  New  York,  in 
1790,  on  the  report  of  a  committee  consisting  almost  entirely  of  Northern  members, 
and  I  do  not  know  an  instance  of  the  expression  of  a  different  opinion,  in  either  house 
of  Congress,  since.  The  servitude  of  so  great  a  portion  of  the  population  of  the  South 
is  undoubtedly  regarded  at  the  North  as  a  great  evil,  political  and  moral,  but  it  is  re- 
garded, nevertheless,  as  an  evil,  the  remedy  of  which  lies  with  those  Legislatures, 
(Southern,)  to  be  provided  and  applied  according  to  their  own  sense  of  policy  and  du- 
ty." General  Washington,  in  urging  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  in  view 
of  a  Union  of  the  Stales,  says,  in  language  which  should  never  be  forgotten,  "I  do 
most  solemnly  believe  that  this  or  dissolution  awaits  us,  and  is  the  only  alternative." 
Let  this  language  of  Washington  be  borne  in  mind,  in  connection  with  the  fact,  that 
the  reasons  and  necessity  which  influenced  the  judgment  of  Washington,  in  1787,  have 
been  increasing  in  number  and  weight  ever  since.  Must  not  every  person  of  ordinary 
discernment  perceive  that  compromise  is  the  great  conservative  principle  of  both  the 
political  and  the  social  system  in  the  United  States,  and  so  far  as  the  Church  or  ecclesias- 
tical legislation  shall  fail  to  conform  to  this  principle  of  Union,  the  Church  must  bear- 
rayed  against  the  State,  and  hostile  to  its  most  vital  interest,  so  far  as  these  may  be 
dependant  upon  such  Union.  The  subject  of  slavery  being,  as  all  must  admit,  compro- 
mised in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  all  citizens  of  all  the  States,  free 
and  slave,  being  parties  to  the  compromise,  all  law,  and  of  course  any  possible  form 
of  ecclesiastical  iaw,  not  in  harmony  with  this  arrangement,  must  infringe  the  guaran- 
ty of  the  great  national  compact.  If  it  be  said  the  Church  is  a  voluntary  associa- 
tion, with  fixed  conditions  of  membership,  it  does  not  affect  the  reasoning,  for  every 
such  compact  necessarily  Subject  to  the  higher,  is,  in  itself  unlawful,  unless  in  confor- 
mity with  the  greater  over-riding  it,  and  to  which  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  is 
a  party.  It  is  not  intended  to  denounce  the  motives  or  conduct  of  those  who  may  be 
opposed  to  the  Constitution,  in  this  respect,  provided  they  do  not  resist  its  control,  or 
seek  to  change  it  by  improper  means.  But  it  is  intended  to  say,  that  those  who  act  so 
as  to  do  the  one  or  the  other,  cannot  be  regarded  as  good  citizens.  It  is  meant  to  say, 
that  any  attempt,  by  the  Church,  or  ecclesiastical  authority,  to  contravene  civil  law  or  in- 
validate civil  rights,  is  not  only  without  warrant  from  the  Bible,  but  pours  contempt  upon 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  admitted  obligations  of  the  Christian  profession.  Slavery  in  the 


36 

Southern  States,  viewed  as  limited  confederating  sovereignties,  is  local  and  provincial ; 
but  as  it  regards  the  Union  of  the  States,  it  is  Federal  and  National,  by  contract  of  the  Con- 
stitution itself;  and  every  essay,  individual  or  social,  by  Church  or  State,  to  unsettle  the 
compromise  of  that  instrument,  reduces  the  value,  and  endangers  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union.  And  that  large  portions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  beginning  to  act 
no  unconspicuous  part  in  1  his  respect,  (however  unintentionally,)  is  a  prevalent  opinion  in 
the  South,  and  when  it  is  disavowed,  let  the  grounds  of  this  opinion  be  set  aside  by  sat- 
isfactory evidence  ;  and  until  this  is  done,  all  denial  will  be  mere  declamation. 

Unless  the  national  pledge  of  the  Constitution,  binding  every  citizen  of  the  confede- 
racy, is  violated  by  the  North,  there  is  no  likelihood  of  disturbance,  or  revolt  by  the 
slaves  and  free  negroes  of  the  South.  If  disturbance  and  revolt  should  take  place,  it 
will  be  upon  direct  or  virtual  invitation  from  the  North  ;  and  that  the  North  may  have 
no  reason  or  pretext  for  such  a  course,  it  greatly,  imperatively,  behooves  the  South 
not  to  withhold  from  the  North,  any  consideration,  claim,  or  indemnity,  authorized  by 
the  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  I  would  invoke  the  South  to  cherish  its  honor 
and  consult  the  interests  of  the  whole  Union  in  this  respect.  That  general  emancipa- 
tion, if  pressed  upon  us  by  the  North,  would  lead  to  revolt  and  conflict,  admits  of  no 
doubt.  In  the  proportion,  therefore,  that  individuals,  political  parties,  or  churches, 
shall  lend  themselves  to  a  course  of  action  calculated  to  bring  about  such  a  result,  and 
the  consequent  disunion  of  these  States,  by  aggression  upon  Southern  rights,  in  the 
same  proportion  will  history  hold  them  accountable  for  the  treason.  It  is  a  grave  sug- 
gestion, and  we  ask  that  it  may  be  gravely  considered.  If  the  North  cannot  proceed 
much  further,  without  danger  to  the  South,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North, 
shall  continue  to  encourage  aggression,  after  the  fashion  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence proceedings,  and  prior  Methodist  movements  in  the  North,  what  must  be  consid- 
ered the  true  attitude  of  the  Church,  with  regard  to  her  pledge  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  to  say  nothing  of  her  own  abused  legislation  on  the  subject!  Who 
will  fail  to  perceive,  that,  in  retreating  from  the  evil,  by  a  peaceful  separation  of  juris- 
diction, the  South  arc  seeking  to  prevent  an  issue  to  which  the  North  are  pushing  us 
with  unrelenting  purpose1!  We  ask  not  the  North  to  approve  slavery.  We  do  not  ask 
them  to  cease  warring  against  it,  so  far  as  such  war  may  be  protected  by  right. 
But  we  do  ask  the  North  to  respect  justice  and  good  faith,  in  connection  with  the  ori- 
ginal compact,  and  subsequent  compromises,  binding  the  North  and  the  South  together 
as  one  great  people.  The  fact  will  obtrude  itself,  as  we  proceed,  upon  the  common 
sense  of  every  reader,  that  the  same  specific  reasons,  calling  for  a  compromise  adjust- 
ment in  our  political,  require  it  in  our  ecclesiastical  relations,  North  and  South;  and 
the  numerous  proofs  of  this  Review,  drawn  from  a  great  variety  of  unrelated  sources, 
will  show  that  the  result  has  been  the  same  with  regard  to  both.  Accordingly,  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  while  the  existing  law,  from  time  to  time  disapproved  the 
system  of  slavery,  it  distinctly  offered  the  overture,  that,  under  specified  circumstances, 
slave  holding  should  not  be  urged  in  bar  to  any  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  mem- 
bership or  ministry,  and  hence  the  compromise,  so  stoutly  denied  by  the  Reply.  From 
the  suggestive  character  of  much  of  the  reasoning  we  have  introduced,  the  discerning 
reader  will  have  perceived  that  the  compromise  argument  of  the  Protest  may  be  viewed 
with  advantage  to  its  evidence,  in  other  points  of  light.  Even  the  common  law  of  so- 
ciety, regulating  social  intercourse  between  the  North  and  the  South,  since  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  former,  has  been  one  of  compromise,  without  which,  such  intercourse 
must  have  been  as  unpleasant  as  limited  and  inconvenient.  And  how  handsomely  and 
generously  this  law  has  been  acted  upon,  by  the  Storeys,  the  Wcbsters,  and  the  Everetts, 


37 

and  intelligent  thousands  in  the  North,  (upon  whom,  and  their  like  in  the  South,  de- 
pend the  hopes  of  the  country,)  none  need  be  told.  It  is  Religious  Fanatics  and  Polit- 
ical Demagogues,  whose  vandal  abuse  of  the  law  of  comity,  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  is  working  the  ruin  of  our  Constitutional  Union.  But  again  :  all  law  is  a  con- 
tract, and  equivalence  of  consideration  is  presumed  to  be  the  motive  determining  the 
parties,  necessarily  existing  under  every  government,  to  consent  and  submission.  Dis- 
turb, then,  one  of  the  contracting  parties  in  the  possession  and  use  of  the  equivalent, 
always  implied,  so  that  expected  advantage  is  not  realized,  and  the  result  is  a  violation 
of  contract,  and  an  impairment  of  right. 

Let  this  principle  be  applied,  in  the  case  of  the  Southern  Methodist  slave  holder,  say 
Harding  or  Bishop  Andrew,  with  the  legislation  and  assurances  of  the  Church  full  in 
view,  and  can  the  conclusion  be  resisted,  that  the  Church  is  disposed  to  meddle  with 
rights  and  principles,  guarantied  by  the  stipulations  of  law,  contrary  to  public  assuran- 
ces given  by  the  Church?  Justice  Story  says,  "any  law  which  enlarges,  abridges,  or  in 
any  manner  changes  the  intention  of  the  parties,  (in  contracts,  whether  of  law  or 
otherwise,)  resulting,  (by  fair  inference,)  from  the  stipulations  in  the  contract,  neces- 
sarily impairs  it."  He  adds:  "a  grant  made  by  a  State  to  a  private  individual,  (and  of 
course  by  a  Church  to  a  minister  or  member,)  and  accepted  by  him,  is  a  contract,  and 
cannot  be  revoked  by  any  future  law."  So  also,  "a  charter  granted  by  the  State  to  a 
company,  is  a  contract,  and  equally  binding  to  the  State  as  to  the  grantee."  Take  now 
the  "law,"  the  "grant,"  the  "charter,"  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  pledging  that 
under  circumstances  specified,  her  Southern  ministers  and  members,  shall  not  be  dis- 
turbed by  the  Church  with  regard  to  the  slaves  they  may  so  hold,  and  compare  it  with 
the  action  and  avowed  policy  of  the  Majority  in  this  contest,  and  what  is  the  inference? 
Apply  the  above  well  known  principle  of  law  and  equity,  to  the  contract  character  of  the 
legislation  of  the  Church  on  slavery,  which  is  a.  properly  as  well  as  a  moral  question, 
and  will  it  not  be  seen,  that  the  Protest  on  this  subject,  is  but  too  full  of  truth  and  rea- 
son? We  introduce,  on  this  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  proof  and  illustration,  numer- 
ous analagous  principles,  facts,  and  cases,  not  merely  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Pro- 
test, but  also  to  show,  with  what  claim  to  candor  and  acquaintance  with  the  subject,  the 
Reply  opposes  to  it  the  most  confident  denial,  and  treats  the  whole  topic,  as  scarcely 
worthy  even  the  sneer  of  superior  information,  with  which  it  is  dismissed.  Having  al- 
luded to  the  property  aspect  of  the  question,  it  is  not  unworthy  of  notice  here,  that  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  Church,  to  give  it  secular  and  civil,  rather 
than  the  high  moral  rank  claimed  for  it,  by  the  late  General  Conference,  inasmuch  as 
the  section  on  slavery,  in  the  Discipline,  is  excluded  from  the  moral  part  of  it,  where  it 
was  once  found,  and  comes  in  under  the  head  of  "Temporal  Economy  of  the  Metfiodist 
Episcopal  Church,"  ostensibly  at  least,  treating  the  subject  as  one  involving  the  legal 
relations  of  property,  and  therefore  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  ecclesiastical  law. 
But  that  the  Church  has  claimed,  and  continues  to  claim,  the  authority  to  interfere  with 
the  civil  rights  of  her  ministers,  as  it  regards  slave  property,  it  is  useless  to  deny,  and 
the  difficulty  and  delicacy  of  such  claim,  must  always  connect  with  the  fact,  that  by  spe- 
cial compact  and  deliberate  compromise,  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  such  rights  are 
placed  beyond  the  reach  of  any  kind  of  infringement,  without  an  invasion  of  constitu- 
tional right.  No  other  species  of  property  in  the  nation,  is  in  the  same  category.  By 
this  time  perhaps,  the  reader  will  be  pretty  well  prepared  to  decide  upon  the  force  of 
one  of  the  principal  positions  of  the  Reply,  that  the  warranted  protection  of  the  rights 
of  slave  holders,  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  the  States  res- 
pectively where  slavery  exists,  can  be  no  ground  of  argument  in  this  discussion.  It 


302551 


38 

may  be  seen  that  while  in  some  States  the  citizen  is  not,  in  others,  as  in  Georgia,  he  is 
"required"  to  hold  slaves — that  instead  of  simply  "allowing"  a  citizen  to  do  so,  when- 
ever he  becomes  the  owner  of  slaves,  they  throw  about  him  legal  constraint  and  immu- 
nity, at  the  same  time. 

Legislation  upon  the  principle  of  mutual  accommodation,  has  always  been  regarded 
as  a  legal  compromise.  The  Reply  admits  a  struggle  in  the  Church  for  sixty  years. 
No  struggle  of  course,  could  exist  without  parties,  and  finally  the  parties  meeting  on 
ground,  not  the  first  choice  of  either,  the  result  is  compromise.  Unable  to  see  by  means 
of  the  same  optics,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  how  was  it  possible  for  the  North  and 
South  to  unite  and  co-operate,  except  on  the  ground  of  compromise]  The  very  showing 
of  the  Reply,  furnishes  the  premises  from  which,  in  part  at  least,  the  conclusion  of  the 
Protest  is  drawn.  A  slight  examination  of  the  Protest  will  show,  that  it  was  not  in- 
tended to  speak  of  any  special  statute  or  enactment,  but  of  the  purpose  and  spirit  of 
general  law,  declared  by  special  acts  at  different  times,  and  adjudications  had  upon 
them  as  giving  the  character  of  a  compromise  to  our  legislation.  All  these,  with  their 
various  relations,  reasops  and  bearings,  are  brought  in,  in  aggregation,  and  compromise 
is  assumed  as  the  result.  In  charging  upon  the  Majority  want  of  good  faith,  in  dis- 
regarding this  compromise,  it  is  plain  the  Protest  intended,  and  we  still  think  most 
justly,  to  represent  the  law  as  a  declaration  of  trust,  the  object  of  the  trust  created,  be- 
ing the  protection  of  character  and  right,  under  well  defined  circumstances.  But  the  Ma- 
jority proceeded  to  withdraw  the  protection  and  destroy  the  relief  afforded  by  law,  and  in- 
stead of  the  protection  and  relief  pledged  by  law,  actually  inflict  the  wrong  it  was  the 
purpose  of  the  law  to  prevent.  On  the  final  legislation  of  the  Church  respecting  slave- 
ry, Dr.  Bangs  says,  "various  enactments  had  been  passed  from  one  General  Conference 
to  another,  with  a  view  to  regulate  the  practice  of  slavery  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — an  evil  this,  which  it  seemed  impossible  to  control,  much  less  to  eradicate  from 
the  ranks  of  our  Israel.  From  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  1784,  slavery  had 
been  pronounced  an  evil,  and  a  variety  of  expedients  had  been  resorted  to  for  the  pur- 
pose of  lessening  its  deleterious  tendencies,  where  it  seemed  unavoidably  to  exist. 
Finding,  however,  that  the  evil  was  beyond  the  control  of  ecclesiastical  law,  as  to  its  erad- 
ication from  the  Church — the  General  Conference  so  modified  the  section  in  the  Dis- 
cipline on  slavery,  as  to  read" — as  it  now  does.  This  is  the  faithful  language  of  his- 
tory, and  gives  a  clear  idea  of  the  compromise  action  of  the  Church,  in  the  management 
of  this  most  impracticable  difficulty.  "Such  may,  through  the  force  of  circumstances,  be- 
come the  state  of  society,  that  great  moral  evils  may  be  tolerated,  where  the  conviction 
is  clear,  that  acts  of  prohibition  would  produce  evils  far  more  extensive  and  far  more 
to  be  deprecated.  So  damaged,  or  disordered,  or  complicate,  by  the  practice  or  misfor- 
tunes of  a  former  age,  may  become  the  very  texture  of  society,  and  so  peculiar  the  re- 
lations, which  as  a  people  we  sustain  to  each  other,  that  an  immediate  and  entire  correc- 
tion of  the  evil,  may  be  impracticable  ;  and  that,  therefore,  neither  individuals  nor  so- 
ciety, are  bound  to  attempt  it." — Plea  for  Africa.  "We  do  indeed  tenderly  sympathize 
with  those  portions  of  our  Church  and  country,  where  the  evil  of  slavery  has  been  en- 
tailed upon  them,  where  a  great  and  the  most  virtuous  part  of  the  community,  abhor 
slavery  und  wish  its  extermination,  as  sincerely  as  any  others  ;  but  where  the  number  of 
slaves,  their  ignorance  and  vicious  habits  generally,  render  an  immediate  and  univer- 
sal emancipation  inconsistent  alike  with  the  safety  and  happiness  of  the  master  and 
slave." — General  Assembly  Presbyterian  Church.  The  remedial  compromise  course  re- 
commended in  these  extracts,  involves  the  principle  intended  to  be  protected  by  the  law 


39 

of  exception,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  general  rule,  in  section  10th  of  the  Dis- 
cipline. 

The  argument  of  the  Reply,  is  without  any  semblance  of  pertinence  or  force,  in  all 
those  cases  coming  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  Discipline,  that  is,  where 
emancipation  is  impracticable,  without  an  evasion  or  violation  of  law,  and  these  were 
the  very  cases  to  which  the  Reply  was  confined,  by  the  premises  of  the  argument.  The 
laws  of  nearly  all  the  Southern  States,  forbid  emancipation  ;  it  is  the  civil  duty  of  the 
citizen  not  to  attempt  it  ;  and  in  many  of  the  States,  as  in  Georgia,  severe  penalties  ac- 
company the  prohibition.  Is  this  true  of  the  absurd  and  offensive  examples  urged  by 
the  Majority  as  analagous?  Does  Southern  Jaw  forbid  the  voluntary  discontinuance  of 
the  theatre,  the  grog-shop,  the  card  table,  or  race  course?  If  not,  what  becomes  of 
the  sophistry  by  which  it  is  gravely  attempted  to  overthrow  the  reasoning  of  the  Pro- 
test? Although  the  slave  is  not  a  citizen  proper,  yet  the  common  denunciation  that  he 
is  a  mere  chattel,  &c.,  betrays  alarming  ignorance  or  want  of  candor.  He  is  directly 
recognized  as  an  inhabitant,  and  is  represented  as  such  in  the  National  Legislature. 
He  is  an  inhabitant  in  charge,  under  the  guardianship  of  a  citizen  proper,  and  this  civil 
relation  is  created  and  protected  by  the  supreme  and  municipal  law  of  this  country. 
Both  create  an  essential  difference  between  property  in  slaves,  and  all  other  kinds  of 
property,  and  hence  the  absurdity  as  well  as  injustice  of  the  position  above.  Was  it 
competent  for  a  free  and  sovereign  people,  in  organizing  a  government  for  themselves, 
to  decide  that  they  would  have  among  them,  by  allowing  them  to  remain,  a  class  of 
human  beings,  introduced  into  the  country  without  their  agency,  by  subjecting  them  to 
the  kind  of  inhabitancy  just  described?  If  yea,  then  what  right  has  a  Church  to  med- 
dle with  such  civil  arrangement?  Is  the  right  derived  from  their  own  civil  relations? 
We  have  seen,  that  any  original  right  they  may  have  had,  has  been  surrendered  by  con- 
tract. And  what  is  their  religious  right?  Before  any  can  be  established,  they  must 
first  prove  a  right  to  resist  civil  authority,  and  also  a  right,  secondly,  to  abolish  the  re- 
lation in  question.  If  nay,  be  the  answer — then  the  Church  is  in  conflict  with  the  gov- 
ernment, and  government,  rather  than  the  civil  relation  established  by  it,  becomes  the 
proper  object  of  attack,  and  all  interference  with  the  subject  is  beginning  to  assume  its 
legitimate  character  of  opposition  to  government  and  civil  authority.  Great  declama- 
tory stress  is  laid  upon  the  inconsistency  of  slavery,  with  the  freedom  and  equality  as- 
sumed in  behalf  of  all  men,  in  the  Declaration  of  National  Independence,  and  the  high 
character  and  insulted  shades  of  the  signers  of  that  instrument,  are  invoked  in  argu- 
ment and  declamation,  against  the  allowableness  of  slavery  as  an  element  of  the  poli- 
tical organization.  This  Declaration  was  the  noble  deed  of  a  noble  band  of  patriots, 
and  was  considered  as  binding  the  nation,  because  the  act  of  their  representatives.  It 
should  not  be  forgotten  however,  that  the  same  and  kindred  conscript  fathers,  were  the 
authors  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in 
both  which,  they  acted  upon  the  declared  principle,  that  the  people  of  the  confederating 
States,  could  never  become  one  nation,  without  a  compromise,  fixed  and  conclusive  in 
its  terms,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  whole  people,  North  as  well  as  South,  rati- 
fied an  arrangement  to  this  effect.  Why  such  frequent  and  flippant  appeals  to  the  De- 
claration, never  intended  as  a  rule  of  action,  to  the  utter  disparagement  of  the  Consti- 
tution, ordained  as  the  great  rule  of  acti on  with  all  concerned?  The  Declaration  com- 
mits the  people  to  general  principles  only,  the  Constitution  binds  them  to  a  given  course 
of  conduct.  It  is  their  own  act,  not  that  of  their  representatives  merely.  It  is  the 
covenant  oath  and  witness  of  their  national  existence,  honor,  and  safety  ;  and  the  man 
who  can  violate  this  covenant  stipulation,  as  elsewhere  explained,  under  cover  of 


40 

Church  relationship,  creed,  conscience,  or  party  organization,  is  an  unworthy  and  dan- 
gerous citizen  of  the  United  States.  And  every  Church  attempting  to  control  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery,  upon  any  other  than  the  compromise  principle  guarantied,  jure  solemni, 
by  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  is  guilty  of  an  attempt  to  unsettle  a  principle, 
upon  the  adjustment  of  which,  the  original  fact  of  confederation  turned  exclusively  ; 
and  such  Church  PO  acting,  must  prove  dangerous  to  the  union  of  the  United  States. 
The  true  doctrine  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  avowed  and  published  up  to  the 
last  General  Conference,  has  been,  that  tolerating  slavery,  in  the  membership,  she  has 
required  her  ministers,  in  view  of  orders,  to  free  themselves  from  slavery,  if  connected 
with  it,  where  it  could  be  done  consistently  with  the  laws,  and  the  welfare  of  the  libe- 
rated slave.  Beyond  this  the  Church  has  not  gone.  We  have  shown  this  to  be,  in 
substance,  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  General  Conferences  of  1836  and 
1840,  in  their  official  addresses.  Evidence  to  the  same  effect,  has  been  brought  to  bear 
from  a  great  variety  of  sources,  all  tending  to  present  the  legislation  of  the  Church  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  in  its  true  and  proper  light,  as  based  upon  the  principles  of 
conventional  compromise  in  conformity  with  the  civil  compact  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  We  have  seen  at  every  step,  that  there  has  been  real  and  lona  fide  compro- 
mise, although  nominal  baptism  to  this  effect,  may  have  been  wanting.  We  regard, 
too,  the  legislation  of  the  Church,  as  we  have  exhibited  it,  not  only  as  rational  and  safe, 
but  as  much  more  accordant  with  the  Scriptures,  than  the  plans  and  projects  to  which 
it  stands  opposed.  If  we  survey  the  entire  aspect,  in  which  the  whole  subject  is  pre- 
sented in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  if  we  turn  to  the  fathers  of 
the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  as  likely  to  reflect  in  their  writings,  the 
decisions  of  Inspiration  in  the  case;  if  we  take  the  occasional  notices  of  profane  histo- 
ry on  the  subject ;  it  will  be  seen,  that  while  the  moral  code  of  Judaism  and  the  genius 
of  Christianity  may  stand  opposed  to  slavery,  as  one  of  the  many  forms  of  civil  oppres- 
sion, and  inconsistent  with  our  conceptions  of  natural  right,  and  the  promised  regene- 
ration of  human  society,  there  is,  nevertheless,  in  all  these  records,  a  distinct  recogni- 
tion of  the  jural  origin  of  slavery,  and  its  necessary  connection  with  civil  polity,  and 
we  no  where,  in  any  of  them,  meet  with  the  language  of  denunciation  and  overthrow, 
with  regard  to  it.  There  is  no  attempt  to  alter  or  disturb  the  relation,  but  simply  to 
prescribe  and  inculcate  the  duties  arising  out  of  it,  and  revealing  the  retributions  con- 
sequent upon  any  and  every  abuse  of  it.  Indeed  the  whole  subject  as  discussed  by 
Christianity  and  managed  by  the  primitive  Church,  is  presented  as  one,  not  to  be  con- 
trolled or  disposed  of  by  either,  except  in  due  subordination  to  the  civil  authority,  and  the 
regulations  of  law,  in  which  it  has  its  origin.  And  in  this  great  primary  fact,  we  see, 
in  principle,  the  true  prototype  of  the  conflict  of  laws,  and  consequent  compromise  treat- 
ment of  the  question,  about  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  say  so  much.  Contrast 
this  with  any  true  picture  of  modern  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  and  in  what  do  they 
agree?  Heaven  and  Hell  are  scarcely  less  resembling.  The  one  is  a  quiet  garden 
scene,  the  other  a  stormy  Pontus,  "casting  up  mire  and  dirt."  In  connection  with  the 
general  argument  of  the  preceding  pages,  it  is  important  to  call  attention  again  to  the 
judgment  of  the  General  Conference  of  1840.  At  this  Conference  two  large  committees 
were  appointed  on  slavery  and  abolition,  one  the  usual  standing  committee,  consisting  of 
a  member  from  each  Annual  Conference,  the  other  a  special  committee  of  nine  members 
of  the  body,  upon  the  well  understood  controversy,  known  as  the  "Westmoreland 
case."  In  addition  to  the  matters  referred  to  this  latter  committee,  by  resolution  of 
the  Conference,  the  committee  were  respectfully  requested,  by  all  the  Bishops  in  coun- 
cil, when  it  was  ascertained  that  the  general  committee  did  not  intend  to  do  so,  to  pre- 


41 

sent  a  full  and  analytical  view  of  the  whole  law  nf  the  Church  on  slavery,  particularly  in 
relation  to  the  rights  of  the  different  grades  of  the  ministry,  as  affected  by  slave  hold- 
ing, so  that  all  discordant  views  and  discrepancies  in  administration  might,  if  possible, 
be  conclusively  adjusted  and  settled,  by  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the 
committee  had  this  specific  object  in  view,  in  making  the  elaborate  report  from  which 
we  have  already  made  several  extracts.  Tl'e  report  was  adopted  with  great  unanimity, 
in  fact  without  a  negative  voice  in  the  body.  This  report  was  looked  to  as  settling  the 
difficulties  it  was  intended  to  remove,  and  was  fully  relied  upon  by  the  South,  as  secu- 
ring all  they  desired  in  the  premises.  The  decision  of  the  General  Conference,  to 
which  we  ask  attention,  is  too  precise  and  unmistakable  in  language  and  meaning,  to 
admit  of  misconstruction,  without  an  intention  to  deceive.  "While  thu  general  rule 
(law,)  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  relating  to  those  States,  whose  laws  admit  of  eman- 
cipation, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  constant, 
ly  enforced,  the  exception  to  the  general  rule,  (law,)  applying  to  those  States  where 
emancipation,  as  defined  above,  is  not  practicable,  should  be  recognized  and  protected, 
with  equal  firmness  and  impartiality,''''  ''Therefore, 

"•Revoked  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That 
under  the  PROVISIONAL  EXCEPTION  of  the  general  rule  (/aw,)  of  the  Church,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  stave  property,  in 
States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  libera- 
ted slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  NO  LEGAL  BAEBIEK  to  the  election  or  ordination  of 
ministers,  to  the  VARIOUS  GRADES  OF  OFFICE,  known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  operating  ANY  FORFEITURE  of 
right,  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination."  Here  is  a  solemn  declaration,  to  the 
Church  and  the  world,  explanatory  of  an  existing  law,  by  the  supreme  judicial  authori- 
ty of  the  Church,  gravely  announcing,  that  simple  slave  holding  or  ownership  of  slaves^ 
in  States  and  Territories  where  emancipation  is  not  practicable,  and  the  liberated  slave 
not  allowed  to  enjoy  freedom,  is  not,  in  any  way,  a  legal  barrier  to  election  and  ordina- 
tion, and  cannot  operate  any  forfeiture  of  right,  on  the  part  of  any  minister  of  any  grade, 
(Deacon,  Elder  or  Bishop,)  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  yet  Drs.  Durbin, 
Peck,  and  Elliott,  as  solemnly  declare,  that  the  Church  has  always  let  it  be  known  that 
slave  holding,  even  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  law,  would,  in  the  case  of 
Bishops,  operate  the  forfeiture  of  right,  which  the  General  Conference  stipulates,  by 
formal  decision,  shall  not  take  place,  in  the  instance  of  any  grade  of  ministers.  And 
accordingly,  without  any  change  of  the  law,  and  in  the  very  face  of  the  above  declara- 
tion of  right,  the  last  General  Conference  did,  directly  and  outrightly,  and  under  the 
precise  circumstances  specified,  as  rendering  such  action  impossible,  what  the  publicly 
pledged  faitli  of  the  Church  had  said,  four  years  before,  should  not  be  done.  Whether 
this  amounts  to  the  want  of  good  faith,  assumed  in  the  Protest,  let  the  good  sense  and 
upright  feeling  of  the  Church  and  world  determine. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  back  ground  of  the  picture. 

It  is  more  than  two  hundred  years  since  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  this  country, 
under  the  exclusive  direction  of  the  British  government.  The  colonies  had  no  will  or 
agency  in  bringing  about  this  result,  and  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  it  was  in  contra- 
vention of  their  wishes.  During  this  entire  term,  slaves  have  been  recognized  and  held 
as  property,  under  all  the  forms  of  government  known  to  the  country,  and  the  Church 
should  not  forget,  that  it  was  the  Christian  governments  of  Europe,  in  the  16th  and 
17th  centuries,  by  which  slavery,  as  a  civil  and  domestic  institution,  was  re-introduced 
and  re-established  among  civilized  nations,  after  its  nominal  abolition  among  the  Wes- 
6 


42 

tern  Gothic  nations  of  that  continent.  And  the  Christian  European  powers  did,  too, 
what  had  never  been  done  before;  they  restricted  the  doom  of  servitude  to  a  single  par- 
ticular race,  and  linked  the  destinies  of  slavery,  in  the  system  they  established,  with 
the  negro  family.  That  it  was  an  outrage,  is  felt  and  admitted  by  all.  That  all  have 
a  right  to  seek  the  removal  of  the  evil,  is  as  readily  admitted.  It  is,  however,  so  in- 
terwoven with  the  very  existence  and  life  blood  of  a  large  portion  of  society,  in  this 
country,  that  it  has  long  been  a  desideratum  how  this  can  be  done,  without  the  introduc- 
tion of  greater  evils.  We  have  seen  that  the  people  of  the  non-slave  holding  States, 
have  no  right  to  attempt  to  control  the  question,  in  any  form.  Their  right  to  appeal 
nnd  remonstrance,  provided  they  do  not  resort  to  means  calculated  to  agitaleand  excite, 
and  thus  inflict  direct  injury  upon  the  South,  is  not  denied,  it  is  believed,  in  any  quar- 
ter. As  a  right  of  comity,  it  is  admitted.  All  attempts,  however,  to  compel  or  force 
the  South,  by  exciting  the  popular  mind,  trying  to  produce  disaffection  among  slaves, 
and  so  disturbing  the  social  system,  as  to  impair  the  value  of  conceded  rights,  and  en. 
danger  the  common  welfare,  are  barred  by  the  Constitution,  and  will  always  meet  with 
prompt  and  determined  resistance  from  the  South.  But  further,  however  it  may  be  re- 
gretted, it  cannot  be  disguised,  that  negro  slavery  now  exists,  connected  with  reputed 
inferiority  of  race,  and  the  incurable  disability  of  color,  and  both  tending,  however  un- 
reasonably or  unjustly,  to  perpetuate  the  evil.  Unhappily  in  the  enslavement  of  the 
negro,  the  worse  than  misfortune,  the  universal  ignominy  of  color,  adds  to  the  hard- 
ship of  servitude,  and  becomes  a  part  of  his  evil  destiny,  even  where  that  servitude  is 
exchanged  for  nominal  freedom.  In  this  melancholy  state  of  things,  the  outrage  upon 
natural  right,  which  all  slavery  implies,  is  made  to  derive  countenance  and  support  from 
nature  herself,  for  it  is  but  too  true,  that  hitherto,  all  races  of  men  in  all  time,  have 
united,  however  wrongfully,  in  decreeing  to  the  negro  a  separate  social  condition,  and 
by  consequence,  destiny.  Even  when  mixed  up  with  other  races,  the  negro  has  not 
been  allowed  to  mingle.  And  it  is  a  very  singular  fact,  that  the  English,  whether  in 
Europe  or  America,  have  cherished  the  principle  of  exclusion,  to  which  we  allude,  be- 
yond any  other  race  known  in  history. 

Slavery  at  one  time,  was  general  throughout  the  colonies  and  afterwards  States.  But 
there  were  physical  and  invincible  reasons  in  the  North,  why  slavery  should  not  obtain 
there,  in  the  way  and  to  the  extent  it  did  South.  It  was  introduced  and  tried,  but  did 
not  work  well.  The  severity  of  the  climate,  poverty  of  the  soil,  and  a  necessary  appeal, 
at  an  early  date  to  manufactures  and  commerce  as  the  staple  pursuits  of  productive  en- 
terprise, and  to  which  slave  labor  was  found  inapplicable,  all  tended  to  expel  slavery 
from  the  North.  The  slave  was  soon  found  to  be  a  bad  bargain,  upon  the  hands  of  the 
shrewd  producer.  The  constant  influx  too,  of  European  adventurers,  English,  Irish, 
Scotch,  Dutch,  Swiss,  and  so  of  the  rest,  filling  up  the  North  to  avoid  competition  with 
the  more  regular  system  of  slave  labor  South,  soon  rendered  Northern  slave  labor  un- 
profitable, by  the  superiority  and  greater  cheapness  of  free  labor,  so  that  the  political 
economy  of  the  North  alone,  was  quite  sufficient  to  either  emancipate  the  Northern  ne- 
gro, or  send  him  a  slave  to  the  South.  It  was  the  interest  and  policy  of  the  North,  to 
get  rid  of  the  negro.  It  was  a  speculation  worthy  of  Northern  sagacity.  Not  so  with 
the  South.  As  early  as  the  first  instance  of  Northern  abolition,  the  slave  question  was 
one  of  life  and  death  with  the  South.  It  was  then  and  continues  to  be,  vitally  connected 
with  the  tenure  by  which  life  is  held,  and  the  order  of  society  maintained.  The  greater 
value  of  the  slave  South,  had  been  a  centripetal  force  gradually  attracting  the  slave 
from  the  North,  for  a  long  term  of  years,  until  when  emancipation  began,  there  was 
found  but  a  small  number  to  be  got  rid  off.  Their  sale  to  Southern  purchasers,  had  greatly 


43 

thinned  the  North  of  slaves  as  "unprofitable  servants,"  and  prepared  the  way  for  the 
emancipation  of  the  balance.     Northern  humanity,  which  forbade  the  sale  of  the  negro 
within  the  limits  of  Northern  States,  did  not  forbid  his  transportation  and  sale  in  the 
South,  and  to  this  process,  the  North  owes  a  large  share  of  its  boasted  freedom  from 
slavery.      Reasons   have   always   existed  in  the  South,  both  for  the  introduction  and 
continuance  of  slavery,  which  never  existed   in  the  North,   and  it  was  as  much  the 
interest  of  the  North  to  abolish  slavery,  as  it  was  of  the  South  to  retain  it.     It  was  a 
business  arrangement,  resulting  from  motives  of  interest  and  policy  with  both, '  the 
South  having  the  additional  plea  of  its  own  safety  to  urge  in  the  case.     The  North 
knew  that  to  abolish  slavery,  was  to  banish  the  negro.     The  South  knew  that  to  abol- 
ish slavery,  was  to  turn  the  negro  loose,  in  countless  numbers,  without  restraint  or 
control.     Its  abolition  North  presented  no  danger,  then  or  in  prospect;  but  it  is  admit- 
ted on  all  hands,  that  its  abolition  South,  at  any  time,  for  at  least  sixty  years  past,  would 
have  been  attended  with  the  most  imminent  danger.     Even  were  the  Southern  States  to 
try  the  experiment  of  keeping  in  slavery  the  present  generation,  while  making  legal 
provision  for  the  freedom  of  the  next,  it  would  establish  a  principle,  in  the  view  of  the 
mass  of  slaves,  which  would  give  birth  to  an  amount  of  impatience  and  irritation,  en- 
dangering the  safety  of  the  whole  South.     What  was  safe  and  laudable  in  the  North, 
would  have  been  suicidal  and  ruinous  in  the  South.     The  inutility  of  slavery  mingled 
with  and  strengthened  the  religious  convictions  of  the  North.     One  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  all  slavery,  the  interest  of  the  master,  was  attacked  in  the  North,  and 
made  its  appropriate  impression.     During  all  this  period,  however,  emancipation  in  the 
South,  without  the  removal  of  the  negro,  would  have  been,  not  Southern  but  National 
madness,  for  it  would  only  have  disposed  and  prepared  the  two  races  for   mutual  de- 
struction.    Any  state  of  things,  tending  to  disturb  the  existing  relations  between  the 
races  in  the  South,  and  which  does  not  at  the  same  time,  contemplate  the  removal  of 
one,  must  tend  to  the  destruction  of  one  or  both  of  them.     Since  the  foundation  of  so- 
ciety, the  white  and  black  races  have  never  co-existed,  under  the  same  government  on 
equal  footing,  and  never  can.     If  the  two  races,  as  is  entirely  certain,  cannot  mingle, 
they  must,  as  it  regards  equality  of  intercourse,  wholly  separate,  and  where  the  num- 
ber of  blacks  is  considerable,  such  separation  without  removal  is  impossible,  except  in 
a  state  of  slavery  or  civil  discord.     The  whole  order  of  society  in  the  United  States, 
must  be  first  subverted  and  then  re-modeled,  before  the  negro  can,  by  possibility,  derive 
and  enjoy  the  same  benefits  of  society  with  the  white  man.     It  is  incontestibly  true  of 
the  whole  North,  from  Maine  to  Illinois,  that  in  the  proportion  the  legal  distinctions 
between  the  white  man  and  negro  are  abolished,  new  barriers  to  any  thing  like  equality 
of  intercourse,  are  studiously  thrown  up  by  the  white  population,  by  means  of  which, 
the  negro  is  re-enslaved,  and  more  hopelessly  doomed,  to  all  the  disadvantages  of  both 
caste  and  condition.     The  whole  course  of  the  North,  for  half  a  century,  proclaims  their 
purpose  and  policy,  not  to  mingle  with  the  negro,  and  yet  they  are  incessantly  pursu. 
ing  a  course,  the  object  of  which  is  to  compel  the  South  to  mingle  with  them,  for  this  the 
South  must  do  in  some  form,  or  else  keep  them  in  slavery,  unless  they  can  be  removed. 
The  repugnance  of  which  we  speak,  is  invincible.     Nature,  not  less  than  the  habit  and 
the  associations  of  ages,  has  established  visible  and  indelible  signs  and  reasons  of  separa- 
tion.    If  we  subdue  and  overcome  the  mere  fact  of  servitude,  the  evil  remains,  as  it  re- 
gards the  actual  condition  and  welfare  of  the  negro,  and  in  most  instances  is  increased 
beyond  estimation.     Wherever  they  are  found,  the  free  negroes  of  this  country  are  de- 
prived of  all  the  more  important  privileges  of  social  humanity,  and  are  literally  suffer- 
ing a  debasement,  in  every  thing  except  the  name,  worse  than  slavery.     At  every  con- 


44 

tact  with  society  they  are  repulsed  and  put  down.  Their  very  color  renders  them  alien 
to  all  about  them — to  every  other  race.  They  have  no  country,  and  unprepared  by  their 
previous  destiny  to  obey  the  voice  and  submit  to  the  dictates  of  law  and  reason,  few  of 
them  act  as  though  they  had  any  property  in  themselves.  Thousands  of  them  perish 
annually  for  want  of  the  protection  and  supply  realized  in  a  state  of  slavery.  After 
an  experiment  of  fifty  years  in  the  North,  no  elevation  of  the  negro  character,  no  im- 
provement of  their  condition  has  taken  place.  As  slavery  recedes  the  prejudice  against 
the  negro  increases.  All  the  non-slave  holding  States,  and  especially  those  where  slave- 
ry has  never  existed,  are  intolerant  even  of  the  presence  of  the  negro.  Look  at  the  im- 
partial humanity  of  Ohio  and  other  free  States,  whose  laws  exclude  not  only  the  slave 
but  the  "free  and  equal"  negro,  and  deny  him  not  merely  the  right  of  holding  property 
but  even  of  residence.  It  is  unlawful  for  any  citizen  of  Ohio  to  employ  a  negro  (free 
of  course,)  to  do  a  day's  work  to  keep  him  from  starving,  unless  he  shall  have  first  given 
security,  both  for  maintainance  and  good  behavior.  The  whole  movement  of  the  North — r 
the  entire  policy  of  the  free  States,  has  been  a  system  of  death  to  the  negro. 

In  their  miserable  freedom,  so  called,  they  have  died  at  the  rate  of  two  to  one,  in  a 
state  of  slavery.  Interest  or  humanity  may  abolish  abstract  slavery,  but  the  interposi- 
tion of  omnipotence  seems  necessary  to  relieve  the  negro  from  the  weight  of  disabili- 
ties beneath  which  he  is  crushed.  The  declaration  of  his  freedom  is  a  fraud  in  every 
State  of  this  Union.  Both  prejudice  and  law  proclaim  it  impossible,  in  the  existing 
state  of  things.  The  ordinary  eligibilities  of  citizenship  are  no  where  his.  The  white 
man  and  the  negro  may  not  separate,  ns  to  the  "bounds  of  habitation,"  but  they  do 
not,  cannot  combine.  They  may  be  together,  but  to  mingle  is  impossible.  The  dis- 
tinction, for  example,  ns  it  relates  to  color  alone,  appears  so  founded  in  an  invincible 
law  of  nature,  that  in  no  instance,  in  the  history  of  civilization,  has  it  yielded  to  the 
influence  of  circumstances.  This  may  be  all  and  utterly  wrong  ;  our  business  is  with 
the  fact  only.  Kindred  reasons  and  arguments  may  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  Dis- 
proportionate, inadequate  compensation  for  labor,  is  assumed  as  a  fundamental  ele- 
ment— one  of  the  chief  disadvantages  of  slavery,  and  it  is  an  argument  principally  ro- 
lied  upon  by  abolitionists,  of  every  sect  and  color,  and  yet  it  is  susceptible  of  the  clear- 
est demonstration,  that  the  slave  of  the  South,  (in  an  annual  estimate,)  gets  more  than 
the  free  negro  of  the  North  ;  and,  by  the  showing  of  the  Northern  argument,  is  less  a 
slave.  Every  victim  of  injustice  is  a  slave,  and  such  is  the  negro  every  where 
in  the  North.  Crushed  by  the  indirect  tyranny  of  law,  and  the  intolerance  of 
public  opinion,  h«  is  the  miserable  victim  of  nil  kinds  of  injustice  and  hard- 
ship. And  what  must  be  the  sober  decision  of  history  with  regard  to  those  who 
pity  the  negro  until  he  becomes  free,  and  then  starve  him  t-i  death?  The  mooted 
question  of  negro  rights  and  worth,  and  his  tille  to  Northern  sympathy  and  pro- 
tection, are  dropped  the  moment  the  negro  becomes  free,  and  appeals  to  the  North- 
ern court  of  errors  for  the  promised  boon  of  equal,  social  and  political  rights. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  paraded  humanity  of  the  North  on  the  subject,  no  actual  abo- 
lition of  slavery  has  ever  taken  place  in  the  United  States.  The  proclamation  to  this  ef- 
fect is  an  imposition  upon  the  civilized  world.  The  servitude  of  the  negro,  and  the  in- 
justice and  hardship  of  his  lot  have  merely  changed  their  form.  The  legal  principle  of 
slavery  is  abolished  in  the  North,  but  all  New  England,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
&c.,  do  not  contain  a  single  negro  who  is  free,  in  the  sense  of  the  Declaration  of  Amer- 
ican Independence— not  one.  No  where  does  the  negro  meet  the  white  man— no  where  is 
he  met  by  him  upon  terms  of  equality.  There  is  no  civil,  social,  domestic,  or  even 
religious  intercommunity  of  enjoyment  or  suffering.  They  are  deprived  of  the  most 


45 

important  rights  of  mankind.  Both  by  law  and  public  opinion  they  are  condemned  to 
hereditary  degradation  and  misery.  Their  liberty  is  a  lie  and  a  cheat.  In  what  do  they 
find  themselves  free,  except  to  be  neglected,  scorned,  and  trodden  under  foot.  Preju- 
dice, manners  and  custom,  turn  aside  and  bear  down  the  fruitless  provisions  of.  legisla- 
tion. There  is  that  constituently  interwoven  with  the  popular  feeling  of  the  American 
people,  in  relation  to  the  unfortunate  negro,  which  law  can  never  efface.  It  is  even 
true,  that  the  prejudice  against  the  negro  increases  with  the  progress  of  emancipation. 
Take  any  of  the  Norlhern  States— that  which  nearest  approaches  the  Utopia  of  mod- 
ern abolitionism,  and  notwithstanding  the  affranchisement  of  the  negro  in  law,  if  a 
white  person  marry  a  negro,  infamy  is  the  result.  Free  negroes,  with  very  few  excep- 
tions as  to  places,  dare  not  avail  themselves  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  even  where  it  is 
allowed.  They  are  no  where  credible  witnesses  against  white  persons— (the  attempt 
of  the  late  General  Conference  to  make  them  such,  notwithstanding.)  There  is  not  a 
State  in  this  Union  where  a  negro  is  essentially  an  equal  party  in  an  action  at  law. 
Where  is  the  negro  admitted  as  equal  peer  and  compatriot  with  the  white  man?  Where 
as  juror,  judge,  or  counsellor!  Is  there  any  office  of  trust  or  honor  to  which  he  is  el- 
igible? What  school  receives  the  two  races  together,  without  being  placed  under  pub- 
lic ban?  Can  the  negro's  money  procure  him  a  seat  at  the  Theatre  or  Opera,  without 
some  signal  of  his  inferiority  offered  in  atonement  to  those  who  .vish  it  to  be  under- 
stood they  but  tolerate  his  presence,  albeit  they  have  sworn  him  free  and  equal?  What 
hospital  or  poor  house  receives  him,  except  apart  from  the  privileged  white  sufferer, 
without,  it  may  be.  half  the  sense  or  virtue  of  the  negro?  Even  ihe  Church  assigns 
him  a  distant  seat  and  different  altar.  The  grave  itself  perpetuates  the  distinction,  by 
disowning  the  fellowship  of  his  dust.  In  life  and  death  alike,  he  is  proscribed  and 
trodden  under  foot  as  an  alien  and  outcast,  and  his  degradation  is  thus  made  to  accom- 
pany him  to  the  very  gates  of  Heaven.  And  all  this  is  true  to  a  much  greater  extent 
in  the  North  than  in  the  South.  The  free  negro  North  is  used— allowed  to  live,  if  hr. 
can,  and  at  any  rate  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  die,  but  no  where  is  he  protected,  encour- 
aged, and  rewarded,  in  all  the  liberty-loving  North.  Paradoxical  as  it  may  seern,  there 
is  nothing  resembling  sympathy  and  equality  of  moral  relation  between  the  races,  ex- 
cept in  the  South,  where  the  one,  in  the  proportion  of  seven  in  ten,  is  enslaved  to  the 
other.  Here,  to  a  great  extent,  the  children  of  the  two  races  grow  up  together,  and, 
as  a  general  rule,  cherish  for  each  other,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  interest  and  attach- 
ment. Similar  reasoning  applies  to  the  household  circle,  as  it  regards  adults.  There 
is  a  natural  sense  of  obligation  and  kindness,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  dependence  nnd 
gratitude  on  the  other,  leading  to  many  of  the  kinder  offices  of  human  intercourse, 
without  which  ihe  heart  must  be  utterly  desolate.  I  do  not  claim  for  the  South  that 
this  view  of  the  subject  applies  to  all  slave  holding  individuals  and  familes.  There  are 
but  too  many  exceptions  to  the  rule,  and  I  shall  not  attempt  to  protect  them  from  the 
execration  they  deserve,  for  neglect  and  cruelty  in  relation  to  their  abused  and  suffer- 
ing slaves.  Nor  do  I  intend  to  charge  upon  the  North,  or  free  States,  that  there  are 
no  individuals  or  families  who  treat  the  negro  as  he  deserves.  I  speak  only  of  the 
general  rule,  in  both  cases,  and  am  anxious  to  give  full  force  to  the  exceptions,  both  as 
it  regards  number  and  weight.  Individuals  and  families  in  the  South  have,  doubtless, 
acted  infamously  toward  their  slaves,  and  continue  to  do  so,  as  individuals  and  fami- 
lies in  the  North  have,  and  continue  to  act,  towards  their  hired  and  apprenticed  ser- 
vants, and  formerly  toward  their  slaves  also.  Most  cheerfully  do  we  bear  testimony, 
that  individuals  and  associations  in  the  North  have,  in  many  instances,  acted  nobly  to- 
ward the  negro,  whether  free  or  slave.  What  we  ask,  is,  that  the  exceptions,  in  both 
cases,  may  be  fairly  contrasted  with  the  general  rule. 


46 

The  abolition  of  slavery  has  been  extensively  agitated,  three  several  times  in  the 
United  States.  The  first  was  about  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. Shortly  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  numerous  abolition  petitions 
reached  Congress,  under  the  administration  of  Washington,  praying  the  interposition 
of  the  General  Government.  They  were  respectfully  received  and  referred  to  an  able 
committee,  as  all  such  petitions  should  be,  and  the  report  of  the  committee  was,  that 
the  General  Government  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject — no  right  to  interfere  in  any 
way,  as  the  matter  belonged  wholly  to  the  slave  holding  States,  without  any  right,  on 
the  part  of  individuals,  societies,  churches,  or  the  free  States,  even,  to  meddle  with  it. 
And  so  the  matter  was  disposed  of,  apparently  So  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned,  and 
the  excitement  died  away. 

The  next  abolition  era,  connects  with  the  admission  of  Missouri,  thirty  years  after, 
when  the  compromise  to  which  we  have  alluded  took  place,  and  again  settled  the  ques- 
tion. The  third  movement  followed  that  of  England,  in  relation  to  West  India  Slave- 
ry, and  has  continued  ever  since,  although  the  movements — the  emancipation  proposed 
here,  and  that  which  took  place  in  the  West  Indies — are  utterly  unanalagous.  Here, 
the  negroes  are  in  the  midst  of  us,  locally  mixed  up  with  a  great  people,  being  to  the 
while  population  as  one  in  three.  There,  they  were  scattered  among  a  cluster  of  dis- 
tant islands,  and  were  twenty  to  one  as  to  number,  rendering  an  expensive  military 
force  indispensable  to  safety,  in  each  island.  Had  four  millions  of  negro  slaves  been 
mixed  up  with  the  people  of  England,  Ireland,  Scotland  and  Wales,  dues  any  sane  per- 
son suppose  they  would  have  been  emancipated  by  the  English  Parliament?  Or  rather, 
is  it  not  certain  they  would  not  have  been,  unless  their  instant  removal  had  been  pro- 
vided for!  It  is  an  instance,  therefore,  of  the  most  stupid  injustice,  to  attempt  to  rea- 
son by  analogy  from  the  one  to  the  other.  Long  before  any  appeal  was  heard  from  the 
North,  the  voice  of  the  South  was  emphatic  in  the  denunciation  of  negro  slavery.  The 
colonies  of  Virginia  and  Georgia,  and  even  South  Carolina,  boldly  remonstrated  against 
the  impolicy  and  inhumanity  of  the  slave  trade,  and  its  consequences,  when  they  knew 
their  Sovereign  was  a  smuggling  slave  merchant,  dividing  the  spoil  with  a  large  num- 
ber of  his  own  subjects,  and  those  of  other  nations.  The  South  too,  has  always  shown 
itself  more  ready  than  the  North,  to  get  rid  of  the  negro  by  removal  and  colonization  in 
Africa,  or  elsewhere,  if  it  be  found  practicable.  The  great  mass  of  Southern  slave 
holders  resist  general  emancipation,  not  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  their  interest, 
viewed  as  a  question  of  political  economy,  but  because  they  know  it  to  be  utterly  incom- 
patible with  their  safety.  Upon  the  consequences  of  tiie  immediate,  indiscriminate 
emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  South,  or  emancipation  by  any  other  than  very  grad- 
ual methods,  I  am  not  disposed  to  dwell.  All  sober  minded  men,  however,  indulge  the 
apprehension,  that  were  the  slaves  thus  let  loose,  they  might  be  led  to  think  and  feel 
like  the  negroes  of  St.  Domingo,  butchering  the  whole  European  population,  in  grati- 
tude for  the  decree  of  the  French  Assembly  of  1791,  declaring  them  "free  and  equal" 
to  the  whites.  Who  does  not  know,  that  every  rash  movement  of  the  North  endangers 
the  safety  of  the  South,  and  compels  further  resort  to  precautionary  measures  of  safe- 
ty, thus  subjecting  the  slave  to  an  abridgement  of  right  and  enjoyment  which  had  never 
been  thought  of  but  for  the  gratuitous  obtrusion  of  Northern  interference. 

It  is  already  perceptible,  that  in  the  West  Indies,  unless  other  systems  of  servitude, 
the  new  types  of  slavery  already  introduced,  should  check  the  tendencies  of  the  eman- 
cipation act,  imposed  upon  the  Islands  against  their  consent,  the  European  race,  yield- 
ing to  the  negro,  is  likely  to  become  extinct.  And  should  the  North  impose  a  similar 
emancipation  upon  the  South,  in  violation  of  the  compromise  of  the  Constitution, 


among  the  immediate  and  necessary  effects,  sooner  or  later,  the  breaking  up  of  the 
American  Confederation,  and  the  destruction  of  the  negro  race  in  the  South  must  be 
numbered.  Look  at  the  Maroons  of  Jamaica  :  ever  since  their  freedom  they  have  utter- 
ly abandoned  themselves  to  universal  idleness,  \vith  all  its  attendant  evils  and  vices,  ob- 
durately refusing  to  labor,  under  any  circumstances,  even  to  prevent  starvation.  The 
bloody  insurrections  too.  in  the  Island  of  Barbadoes,  in  1816,  taking  into  the  account, 
causes  and  consequences,  is  a  comment  to  the  same  general  effect.  Improvidence  and 
idleness,  vagrancy  and  crime,  are  the  notorious  fruits  of  emancipation  in  the  United 
States  and  the  West  Indies.  Crime,  in  the  United  States,  among  free  negroes,  is  in 
something  like  tenfold  proportion,  compared  with  what  it  is  among  Southern  slaves, 
and  the  mortality  is  more  than  double.  Our  criminal  and  medical  statistics  abundantly 
attest  these  facts.  A  pretty  extensive  acquaintance  with  more  than  half  the  States  of 
this  Confederacy,  and  about  an  equal  number,  North  and  South,  has  led  me  to  believe 
that  the  slaves  of  the  South  are  better  conditioned  and  better  satisfied  than  the  free  ne- 
groes of  the  North  ;  and,  as  a  general  rule,  are  better  informed,  especially  on  the  sub- 
ject of  their  moral  relations.  And,  also,  that  they  are  well  disposed,  and  inclined  to 
virtue  and  morality,  greatly  beyond  those  of  the  North,  or  the  free  negroes  of  the 
South.  The  latter  too,  do  much  better  in  the  South  than  in  the  North.  Two  reasons 
have  long  operated  accordingly,  in  driving  free  negroes  from  the  North,  where  they 
properly  belonged,  to  the  South.  First,  the  repulsive  inhumanity  of  the  North,  in  so 
treating  them,  that  they  have  preferred  seeking  shelter  in  the  Southern  States.  And, 
secondly,  the  fact,  that  even  the  free  negroes,  so  injurious  to  the  Southern  slave  inter- 
est, have  generally  fared  better  in  the  South  than  in  the  North;  and  thus  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  freed  slaves  of  the  North,  especially  from  1790  to  1830,  subsisted,  in 
fact,  on  Southern  charity. 

About  three  millions  and  a  half  of  slaves  are  now  part  and  parcel  of  the  population 
of  the  United  States.  They  are  here  in  our  midst,  and  must  be  governed,  and  must 
have  support.  They  were  originally  entailed  upon  us,  against  our  will  and  wishes,  by 
the  mother  country,  during  our  colonial  existence;  but  being  here,  they  must  remain 
and  be  controlled,  unless  some  plan  can  be  adopted  for  their  removal.  Remaining,  how 
can  they  be  governed,  except  in  a  state  of  slavery?  Every  State  in  the  Union  is  dis- 
posed to  cast  off  the  few  who  are  free.  Every  where  their  presence  is  regarded  as  an 
evil,  if  not  nuisance.  The  South  will  not  emancipate  except  upon  condition  of  remo- 
val. The  North  will  not  consent  to  receive  even  a  fnir  proportion  of  them,  should  they 
become  free;  and  what  is  to  be  done  with  them!  Their  gradual  emancipation  and  re- 
moval has  never  been  objected  to  by  the  South  ;  and  carried  out  upon  the  principles  of 
the  original  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  never  will  be.  We  say  |o  our  common 
country,  free  us  of  the  danger,  and  we  consent  to  the  removal  of  the  evil. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  three  questions  press  upon  us: — our  own  good,  in  the 
slave  States;  the  good  of  the  negro,  free  and  slave;  and  the  common  good  of  the  coun- 
try. In  our  deliberate  judgment,  those  who  are  conducting  the  Northern  crusade 
against  Southern  slavery,  have  no  eye  to  either,  or  having  any  such  end  in  view,  have 
been  infinitely  unfortunate  in  the  selection  of  means,  and  the  temper  displayed  in  the 
use  of  them.  If  the  clamorous  censors  of  Southern  policy  are  the  true  friends  of  the 
negro,  why  do  they,  in  the  same  breath  urge  emancipation  in  the  South  and  legislate  to 
exclude  the  negro  from  the  free  States?  Is  it  merely  intended  in  this  way  to  annoy  the 
South  by  a  violation  of  the  plain  duties  of  citizenship,  or  are  they  willing  to  be  under- 
stood as  conceding  that  there  is  no  chance  for  the  negro  except  in  the  South! 


43 

In  any  analysis  of  the  facts  of  history  and  experience,  connected  with  the  general 
abolition  movement  under  discussion,  we  are  naturally  led  to  judge  of  the  principles 
and  motives  of  tlrose  embarked  in  the  movement,  from  their  moral  and  religious  char- 
acter and  course  of  action  in  other  directions  and  aspects.     And  as  citizens  and  subjects 
of  Great  Britain   have  been  very  actively  concerned  for  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years 
in  getting  up  and  carrying  on  the  great  anti-slavery  and  abolition  excitement  in  the 
Northern  States,  it  will  be  proper  to  devote  some  attention  to  the  moral  character  of  the 
movement  in  both  countries.     In  doing  so,  however,  it  is  not  intended,  in  speaking  of 
Great  Britain,  or  the  Northern  States,  to  include  all  persons,  or  the  entire  people  of 
either.     But  as  the  more  moderate  and  conservative  portions  of  the  people,  in  the  ons 
and  the  other,  have  not  seen  proper  publicly  to  separate  from  the  movement  parties  in 
question,  by  formal  disapproval  and  condemnation  of  their  course,  it  cannot  be  expect- 
ed that  we  should  do  more,  by  way  of  excepting  them,  than  they  have  done  themselves. 
That  the  movement  in  this  country  was  set  on  foot  by  foreign  (British)  influence,  has 
been  so  extensively  avowed  by  the  Church,  that  no  proof  of  the  fact  can  be  called  for. 
It  has  been  assumed  in  Episcopal  and  General  Conference  addresses.     It  has  been  dis- 
tinctly avowed,  again  and  again,  in  the  official  papers  of  the  Lhurcli  at  New  York  and 
Cincinnati.     It  is  elaborately  declared  to  be  the  fact,  by  Dr.  Bangs,  in  his  History  of 
the  Church.     It  was  repeatedly  avowed  by  American  speakers,  in  the  famous  meeting 
of  malcontents   and  agitators  on  this  subject,  ever  since  praying  to  be  known  as  "the 
World's  Convention.1"     The  fact  is  notorious,  and  will  not  be  denied.     As  the  United 
States  preceded  England  in  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  and  was  the  first  of  civil- 
ized nations  in  an  attempt  to  redress  the  wrongs  of  Africa,  admitting  the  equally  noble 
conduct  of  England  in  doing    the  same  a  short  time  after,  England  can  claim  no  credit 
on  this  score  to  which  we  are  not  equally  entitled.     We  ask. attention  to  British  policy 
in  other  aspects  connected  with  slavery.     Look  then,  at  the  British  Government  abol- 
ishing   slavery  in  the  West  Indies,  but   pursuing  a  wholesale  system  incomparably 
worse  in  her  East  India  possessions.     The  British  Asiatic  Journal  says,  "the  whole  of 
Hindostan,    with  the  adjacent   possessions,   is   one  magnificent   plantation,  per.pled  by 
more  than  one  hundred  millions  of  slaves,  belonging  to  a  company  of  gentlemen  in  Eng- 
land, whose  power  is  far  more   unlimited  than  that  of  any  Southern  planter  over  his 
slaves."     In  the  very  act  of  West  India  emancipation,  it  is  distinctly  declared,    (see 
section  44.)  that  the  slavery  of  other  parts  of  the  British  Dominions  was  not  to  be  in 
any  way  affected  by  the  act.     Beside  the  slavery  just  noticed  in  connection  with  the  East 
India  Company,  there  is  a  well  known  government  system  of  slave  ownership  in  Mala- 
bar, the  Islands  of  Ceylon,  St.  Helena,   and  other  places,  where  the  English  Govern- 
ment is  a  notorious  slave-factor— a  regular  jobber  in  the  purchase  and  sale  of  slaves. 
The  system   is  carried  on,  enlarged,  and   perpetuated,   by  the  purse  and  bayonet  of  the 
Government. — Asiatic  Journal  and  Parliamentary  Debates.     Numerous  English  author- 
ities might  be  cited,  to  show  that  England  determined  to  sacrifice  her  West  India  Col- 
onies to  brintr  the  productions   of  the  Ganges  and  Barompooter  in  competition   with 
those  of  the  slave   holding  portion  of  the  United  States  and  the  Brazils.     Tho  British 
Government  has   formally   sanctioned  the  entire  Hindoo  system  of  slavery.     The   same 
sanction  has  been  extended  to  the  Mahomedan  system,  by  which  the  Government  has 
become  a  pander  to  both,  spread  out  among  a  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  British  sub- 
jects in  India.     England  has  gone  farther.     She  has,  actually,  by  the  origination  of  a 
separate,  independent  slave,  trade,  established,  in  India,  a  third  system  of  her  o,vn,  by 
the  activity  and  vigor  of  which,  the  children  of  Africa  and  others,  are  being  annually 
enslaved  by  thousands.     An  English  witness,  Dr.  Buwering,  affirms,  of  British  subjects 


in  India,  "the  entire  population  of  this  vast  empire  are  subjected  to  the  most  degrading 
servitude — a  deeper  degradation  than  any  produced  by  West  Indian  or  American  slave- 
ry. They  are  perishing  by  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  from  famine,  while 
the  store  houses  of  the  East  India  Company  are  filled  with  bread,  wrung  from  the  soil 
by  a  standing  army."  "Uncounted  multitudes  sell  themselves  and  children  into  slavery 
by  permission  of  the  British  Government." — Parliamentary  Papers,  1839.  The  same 
authority  declares,  that  "an  external  slave  trade,  by  importation,  including  all  the  at- 
tendant horrors  of  a  regular  system  of  kidnapping,  is  carried  on."  The  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington remarked  lately,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  "slavery  does  exist  in  that  country — 
domestic  slavery  in  particular,  to  a  very  considerable  extent ;  yet  I  would  be  careful 
how  I  interfered  with  the  matter.  I  would  recommend  your  Lordships  to  deal  lightly 
in  the  matter  if  you  wish  to  retain  your  sovereignty  in  India."  McNaughton  says, 
"thousands  are  at  this  moment  living  in  a  state  of  hopeless,  unauthorized  bondage. 
They  have  sanctioned  the  free  importation  of  slaves  into  their  territories  from  foreign 
States."  Sir  Robert  Peel  lately  made  the  charge,  and  oifered  the  evidence,  in  the  Na- 
tional Legislature,  that  "British  Merchants  are,  even  now,  deeply  and  extensively  en- 
gaged in  the  slave  trade."  That  country  too,  is  at  this  moment  engaged  in  a  new  sys- 
tem of  ENGLISH  negro  slavery,  by  the  forcible  capture  of  negroes  in  Africa,  compelling 
them  to  apprentice  themselves,  by  the  insulting  mockery  of  legal  forms,  for  a  term  of 
fourteen  years  ;  and  whether  this  be  with  or  without  nominal  security  as  to  their  free- 
dom at  the  expiration  of  the  term,  it  is  essentially  a  violation  of  the  compact  of  nations, 
relating  to  the  slave  trade,  and  a  species  of  legal,  but  real  piracy,  by  no  means  in  bad 
keeping  with  other  demonstrations  of  the  English  Government  in  the  selection  and  use 
of  means  and  measures  for  the  purposes  of  national  aggrandisement.  Finding,  too, 
that  they  cannot  rely  upon  the  labor  of  the  free  blacks,  emancipation  in  the  West  In- 
dies has  been  succeeded  by  another  experiment — the  enslavement  of  the  Hill  Coolies  of 
India,  to  take  the  place  of  West  India  freed  negroes.  Both  these  systems  of  slavery 
are  now  in  operation  for  the  benefit  of  the  West  Indies,  and  other  tropical  portions  of 
the  Empire. 

The  legalized  kidnapper  seizes  ihe  hand  of  the  poor  captive  on  the  banks  of  the  Gam- 
bia, and  compels  his  signature  to  a  fraudulent  indenture,  about  which  he  knows  no 
more  than  the  monkeys  chattering  in  the  woods  about  him,  and  he  goes  to  the  West 
Indies  a  slave,  to  prove  the  practicability  of  ample  production,  notwithstanding  tho 
emancipation  of  his  predecessor!  The  Coolies,  a  poor,  swarthy,  degraded  caste  of  la- 
borers in  India,  existing  in  great  numbers,  and  generally  in  a  state  of  starvation  and 
suffering,  are  prevailed  on  to  go  to  the  West  Indies,  and  when  they  reach  there,  as 
apprenticed  slaves,  the  negroes  of  the  Antilles  refuse  all  association  with  them,  as 
more  degraded  than  themselves.  In  India  they  are  oppressed  beyond  the  means  of 
subsistence,  and  in  1838,  five  hundred  thousand  of  them  perished  of  famine  in  a  single 
district.  This  state  of  things  will  always  be  sufficient  to  secure  emigration,  and  sup- 
ply the  West  Indies  with  slaves.  No  corner  of  the  British  Empire  can  he  pointed  out 
in  which  there  is  not  worse  slavery,  in  some  shape  or  other,  than  in  the  United  States. 
Who  can  help  seeing  that  the  fetters  were  struck  from  eight  hundred  thousand  negroes, 
in  the  West  Indies,  only  to  be  fastened  upon  as  many  European  sufferers,  of  the  labor- 
ing classes,  at  home'?  It  has  been  more  than  intimated,  in  numerous  English  publica- 
tions, and  the  Debates  of  Parliament,  that  speculations  upon  the  reflex  bearings  West 
India  emancipation  is  to  have  upon  the  fate  of  our  Southern  negroes,  and  especially 
in  connection  with  the  production  of  our  Southern  staples,  rice,  cotton,  tobacco,  and 
sugar,  will  go  far  to  explain  the  philanthropy  of  the  West  India  eraancjpation  act. 
7 


» 


England  has  betrayed  and  avowed  her  policy,  and  explained  her  motives  in  too  many 
forms,  to  admit  of  doubt  as  to  the  intentions  of  government.  That  thousands  of  the 
good  people  of  England  saw  in  it  nothing  but  good  will  to  the  negro,  we  readily  admit. 
But  when  we  see  England,  as  we  are  compelled  to,  ruining  and  starving  millions,  by  a 
system  of  oppression  inconceivably  worse  than  the  slavery  of  the  United  States,  we 
must  be  allowed  to  judge  of  motives  by  other  tests  than  mere  profession.  How  does  it 
happen  that  England  is  so  deeply  interested  in  the  fortunes  of  Southern  slavery  in  this 
country,  and  at  the  same  time  so  unfeelingly  inattentive  to  the  cry  of  millions  of  her 
own  suffering  subjects  in  British  India?  Why  so  readily  excited  into  activity  by  car- 
icature appeals  in  behalf  of  the  American  slave,  while  the  living  cry  of  her  own  en- 
slaved and  starving  millions  does  not  affect  her?  Why  are  the  Cabinet,  at  Washington, 
as  well  as  the  people  of  the  United  States,  favored  with  remonstrance  and  homily  on 
the  subject  of  civil  oppression,  while  an  unheeded  voice  is  heard  pealing  through  the 
diameter  of  the  Globe,  from  Cuddalone,  Tanjore,  Madras,  the  Bengal  Presidency,  and 
other  parts  of  outraged  India,  asking  in  vain  for  redress?  We  only  quote  British  history 
when  we  state,  that  in  two  famines  alone,  occasioned  solely  by  the  forced  exclusive  mo- 
nopoly of  the  grain  trade,  immense  masses  of  human  beings — all  subjects  of  British  mili- 
tary despotism,  equal  in  number  to  the  whole  negro  population  of  the  United  States — per- 
ished from  sheer  starvation,  while  within  reach,  in  the  English  granaries,  in  both  in- 
stances, were  locked  up  and  guarded  by  military  force,  ample  means  of  subsistence  and 
supply  for  all  these  murdered  millions,  and  only  and  yet  inexorably  withheld  from 
motives  of  pelf  and  cupidity,  in  view  of  enhanced  price !  The  acute  and  discerning 
Southey  says,  of  the  great  mass  of  the  English  poor,  "they  are  deprived,  in  childhood, 
of  all  instruction  and  enjoyment.  They  grow  up  without  decency — without  comfort — 
without  hope — without  morals,  and  without  shame.  They  bring  forth  slates  like  them- 
selves, to  tread  in  the  same  path  of  misery."  The  North  British  Review  remarks, 
"there  is  fair  ground  to  question,  whether,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  slavery, 
with  all  its  attendant  evils,  there  be  a  larger  proportional  amount  of  ignorance,  crime, 
and  misery,  in  the  United  Stales  of  North  America,  than  is  to  be  found  in  Great  Bri- 
tain and  Ireland.  The  abolition  of  slavery  in  America  would  be  a  far  greater  triumph 
of  principle,  humanity,  and  courage,  than  was  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in  the  Bri- 
tish Colonies  ;  its  abolition  there  would  be  much  more  honorable.  The  physical  con- 
dition and  general  treatment  of  slaves  in  the  United  States  are  better  than  they  were  in 
our  West  India  colonies  previous  to  emancipation.  Our  countrymen,  in  general,  have 
treated  the  Americans  unkindly  and  unfairly.  It  would  have  been  hopeless  to  have  ex- 
pected West  India  proprietors  to  have  emancipated  their  slaves  without  compulsion. 
We  are  very  doubtful  whether,  if  slavery  had  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  us  it  does  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Southern  States  of  America,  there  be  even  now  enough  principle,  hu- 
manity, and  courage,  in  the  community  of  Great  Britain  to  have  effected  its  abolition." 
It  is  well  known  that  quite  recently  the  English  Government  passed  an  "order  in  coun- 
cil," for  the  transportation  of  one  hundred  thousand  negroes  from  Africa  to  Demarara  alone, 
and  offers  a  bounty  upon  the  head  of  every  negro  brought  into  Sierra  Leone  for  trans- 
portation to  the  West  Indies;  thus  bribing  the  African  to  make  a  slave  of  his  fellow. 
It  is  true  these  poor  creatures  are  called  apprentices — being  slaves  in  fact.  There  is 
not  one  fifth  part  the  amount  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  there  is  in  the  British  Em- 
pire. In  fact,  England  owns  more  slaves,  detached  from  the  soil,  (not  serfs  or  vassals.) 
than  all  ether  civilized  nations  put  together.  Allison,  in  his  History  of  Europe,  avows 
the  opinion  of  Ireland,  that  "it  would  be  a  real  blessing  to  its  inhabitants,  in  lieu  of 
the  destitution  of  freedom,  to  obtain  the  protection  of  slavery."  Murry,  the  English 


51 

traveler,  says,  of  the  slaves  of  the  South,  "if  they  could  forget  that  they  are  slaves 
their  condition  is  decidedly  better  than  the  great  mass  of  European  laborers."  The 
London  Quarterly  Review,  speaking  of  West  India  emancipation,  says,  "the  results  of 
that  experiment  are  extremely  doubtful.  Let  us  beware  of  increasing  the  suspicion  that 
we  are  willing  to  urge  our  example  on  the  United  States,  from  motives  not  of  philan- 
thropy merely,  but  in  part  at  least  of  mercantile  calculation."  It  has  been  avowed  in 
England,  since  1840,  in  twenty  different  forms,  especially  in  leading  political  journals, 
that  British  tropical  production  cannot  compete  with  American,  until  the  American  sys- 
tem of  slavery  is  undermined.  These  journals  have  invoked  attention  to  facts,  so  cu- 
rious and  instructive,  that  we  shall  be  excused  for  noticing  a  few.  Our  sources  of  in- 
formation are  all  English.  >. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  cotton  production  of  America,  North  and  South,  amounts* 
to  some  800,000,000  pounds,  the  result  of  slave  labor,  while  England  is  unable  to  reach 
150,000,000  pounds,  in  all  parts  of  her  dominions.  The  annual  production  of  Ameri- 
can sugar  is  stated,  upon  the  same  authority,  to  exceed  that  of  England  in  the  propor- 
tion of  10,000,000  to  4,000,000  ;  and  it  is  alledged  that  a  similar  disproportion  obtains 
with  regard  to  all  tropical  products.  The  English  press  has  announced  that  the  annual  pro- 
duct of  fixed  American  capital,  based  upon,  or  otherwise  connected  with  slave  labor,  is 
about  220,000,000,  while  that  of  England,  vested  in  the  production  of  the  staples  to  which 
slave  labor  is  applied,  in  North  and  South  America,  does  not  exceed  50,000,000.  It  is 
declared,  that  England  cannot  look  upon  such  results  with  indifference,  and  that  she 
must  right  herself  by  some  means,  among  which  it  has  been  more  than  intimated  the 
subversion  of  the  slavery  system  of  the  South  was  a  desideratum.  At  one  time  it  has 
been  urged  upon  the  attention  of  England,  that  the  advantage  enjoyed  by  America,  in 
consequence  of  the  large  amount  of  slave  labor,  must  lead  to  a  corresponding  extension 
of  commerce,  growth  of  manufactures,  with  increased  national  wealth  and  strength. 
At  another,  it  has  been  pressed  upon  the  notice  of  the  Northern  States,  that  jt  is  their  : 
interest  to  unite  with  other  countries  in  subverting  the  existing  system  of  Southern 
production !  And,  apprehensive  that  the  North  might  have  sagacity  enough  to  see,  ' 
that  drying  up  the  sources  of  Southern  production  must  instantly  and  fatally  cripple 
Northern  commerce  and  manufactures,  with  which  those  of  England  would  be  immedi- 
ately brought  in  competition,  prostrating  the  North  as  effectually  as  the  South  may  be 
ruined,  it  has  been  attempted  to  show,  that  Northern  capital  and  labor  might  accom- 
plish, in  the  South  of  this  country,  what  the  home  argument  seems  to  concede  is  not 
likely  to  be  accomplished  in  English  Southern  colonies  !  We  would  not  be  invidious. 
We  are  anxious  to  reason  correctly  on  the  subject;  but  we  cannot  perceive  what  con- 
nection there  is  between  such  appeals  and  suggestions,  and  the  ostensible  objects  of  En- 
glish philanthropy  and  Northern  abolition,  respecting  Southern  slavery.  Such  a  poli- 
cy, if  ever  adopted  and  acted  upon,  will  as  certainly  destroy  the  elements  of  our  social 
strength  and  greatness,  as  that  the  Union  of  the  States  cannot  survive  it. 

A  member  of  the  British  Parliament  declared,  recently,  "the  greater  proportion  of 
the  people  of  England  demand  the  immediate  emancipation  of  slaves,  in  whatever  quar- 
ter of  the  world  they  maybe  found."  He  should  have  added — "let  charity  begin  at 
home."  Another  member  of  Parliament  says,  "we  will  turn  to  America  and  requir- 
emancipation."  It  is  to  be  hoped  he  meant,  after  freeing  the  last  million  of  their  own 
slaves  !  In  this  way  foreign  arrogance  is  reading  us  homilies  on  immediate  emancipa- 
tion, when  even  foreign  ignorance  must  have  known  that  all  the  emancipation  we  have 
had,  in  Mexico,  Chili,  Buenos  Ayres,  Colombia,  St.  Domingo,  and  the  West  Indies, 
was  gradual,  not  immediate.  The  slaves  of  Mexico,  so  often  quoted  as  an  example  of 


..,*.   ,  '    ^. 

52 


*'••/  m : 


immediate  abolition,  had  to  purchase  their  own  freedom  by  labor,  at  an  ad  valorem  esti- 
mate, requiring  generally  twelve  or  fourteen  years  labor,  and  in  many  instances  much 
more ;  so  that  myriads  of  them  were  only  emancipated  by  death.  It  is  quite  unnecessary  to 
say,  that  deeply  as  the  South  may  feel  interested  in  the  question  of  prospective  emanci- 
pation, nothing  will  be  yielded  to  intimidation  at  home,  or  from  abroad.  The  London 
Athenaeum  appeals  warmly  and  directly  to  the  North,  in  favor  of  "the  duty  and  policy 
of  instant  abolition."  The  London  Herald,  a  government  paper,  says,  in  anticipation 
of  a  conflict  with  the  United  States,  "are  Texas  and  Oregon  to  become  the  principal 
military  stations  of  a  power  which  has  at  its  command  the  Lakes,  the  St.  Lawrence, 
Halifax,  Bermuda,  most  of  the  West  India  Islands,  and,  above  all,  the  terrific  war-cry 
of  negro  emancipation!"  The  language  attributed  to  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  whether 
true  or  not,  as  an  utterance  of  his,  must  be  regarded  as  full  of  interest,  because  in  ac- 
cordance with  so  much  that  is  known  to  be  true  on  the  subject  to  which  it  refers.  "The 
Sovereigns  of  Europe  have  determined  upon  the  destruction  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  and  have  come  to  an  understanding  upon  the  subject,  and  they  will  event- 
ually succeed  by  subversion  rather  than  conquest.  It  is  (this  country)  a  receptacle  for 
the  bad  and  disaffected  population  of  Europe ;  and  the  European  governments  favor 
such  a  course.  This  will  create  a  surplus,  and  a  majority  of  low  population,  who  are 
easily  excited.  All  the  low  and  surplus  population  of  the  different  nations  of  Europe 
will  be  carried  into  that  country.  They  will  bring  with  them  their  principles,  and,  in 
nine  cases  out  of  ten,  adhere  to  their  ancient  and  former  governments,  laws,  manners, 
customs,  and  religion,  and  will  transmit  them  to  their  posterity.  Discord,  disunion, 
anarchy,  and  civil  war  will  ensue,  and  some  popular  individual  will  assume  the  gov- 
ernment and  restore  order,  and  the  Sovereigns  of  Europe,  the  emigrants,  and  many  of 
the  natives  will  sustain  them."  We  leave  facts  to  speak  for  themselves  on  this  sub- 
ject, whether  in  confirmation  or  correction  of  such  speculations. 

The  manner  in  which  our  country  is  almost  literally  belted  by  British  possessions, 
and  surrounded  by  British  influence,  is  known  to  every  one.  Take  the  range  of  the 
British  West  India  Islands,  from  West  to  East,  include  the  immense  territory  recently 
acquired  of  the  government  of  Central  America,  and  by  means  of  which  they  will  al- 
ways be  able  to  command  the  Ithmus  of  Darien,  uniting  North  and  South  America — 
pass  thence  to  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Newfoundland,  the  Canadas,  New  Britain, 
extending  nearly  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  to  complete  the  chain,  Oregon  is  claim- 
ed, from  its  Northern  limit  to  its  nearest  approach  to  the  Mexican  boundary.  In  this 
vast  region,  a  scattered  population  of  nearly  100,000  are  already  subject  to  British 
law,  with  an  immense  military  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  thus  commanding, 
not  only  the  outlet  of  all  our  Northern  Lakes,  but  occupying  the  key  of  the  Pacific, 
with  a  view  of  controlling  the  trade  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  Java,  the  Spice  Islands, 
China,  &c.  England  is  a  friendly  power,  and  should,  by  all  means,  be  treated  as  such, 
to  the  extent  her  conduct  will  allow.  She  is,  however,  a  rival,  and  may  become  an  en- 
emy. And  by  how  far  she  has  manifested  a  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  internal 
policy  of  this  country,  especially  in  relation  to  slavery  and  commerce,  should  certainly 
be  watched  and  resisted.  The  whole  press  of  the  country,  political  and  religious,  has 
been  nearly  unanimous  in  declaring  the  abolition  and  anti-slavery  movement  in  the 
United  States,  to  be  of  foreign  .English  origin.  The  same  has  been  avowed  by  the 
British  and  conceded  by  the  abolition  press  of  the  United  States.  Is  or  is  not  all  this 
sufficient,  to  place  this  country  upon  its  guard?  Grant  that  it  is  the  duty,  and  would 
be  wise  in  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  attempt  by  fair  and  constitutional  meth- 
ods, to  free  the  country  of  slavery,  why  this  foreign  interference  and  tampering— why 


53 

this  courting  and  coaxing  of  foreign  countenance  and  co-operation,  by  the  organized 
anti-slavery  associations  of  this  country'?  What  must  bethought  of  American  citizens 
who  ally  themselves  with  foreign  combinations  to  disturb  and  agitate  the  country,  and 
on  a  subject  and  in  a  way,  necessarily  tending  to  dissolve  the  union  of  the  States?  One , 
English  Journal  says,  "the  people  of  England  will  never  rest  until  slavery  is  termina- 
ted in  the  United  States."  Another  says,  "slavery  can  only  be  reached  through  the 
Federal  Constitution."  Such  is  the  text ;  and  the  comment  is  a  constant  effort  in  Eng- 
land, more  or  less  disguised  and  respectful,  to  array  the  North  against  the  South  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  and  then  in  turn  the  South  against  the  North,  in  the  matter  of 
her  own  free  trade  propagandism,  with  which  the  South  is  presumed  to  be  in  sympathy. 
We  would  not  be  ill-natured,  but  we  ask  attention  to  the  facts.  Again :  why  a  constant 
effort  of  the  English  press  to  exagerate  the  disabilities  and  sufferings  of  the  American 
slave,  while  similar  and  in  many  instances,  inconceiveably  greater  oppression  and  suf- 
fering among  British  subjects,  are  kept  entirely  out  of  sight?  Should  not  a  country  so 
long  and  inveterately  in  the  habit  of  claiming  prerogatives,  and  exercising  rights,  not  de- 
rived from  either  God  or  man,  which  is  known  to  have  expended  much  more  blood  and 
treasure,  in  invading  the  rights  of  others,  than  in  defending  her  own,  be  a  little  care- 
ful in  the  extension  of  censorship  over  the  morals  of  other  countries?  A  nation  whose 
annual  custom  it  has  been  for  ages,  to  transport  thousands  into  perpetual  slavery,  in  dis- 
tant penal  colonies,  not  merely  for  crime  proper,  but  for  offences  committed  only  to 
prevent  starvation,  and  by  which  no  one  was  injured  to  the  amount  of  a  shilling,  such 
as  stealing  a  pheasant  or  shooting  a  hare,  might  afford  to  be  a  little  more  considerate,  a 
little  less  officious,  in  meddling  with  the  defective  codes  of  other  countries  We  are 
willing,  never  reulctant,  to  have  bared  to  public  gaze,  thejibuses  of  American  slavery; 
but  England  ought  never  to  do  it  without  a  faithful  depiction  of  the  atrocities  she  knows 
to  exist,  by  license  of  her  own  government,  in  different  parts  of  the  Empire.  For  ex- 
ample, when  lecturing  the  United  States  on  the  evils  and  horrors  of  Southern  slavery, 
she  should  enable  us  to  judge  of  her  impartial  clemency,  in  connection  with  practices 
not  unlike  those  falsely  charged  upon  the  South  of  the  United  States  ;  the  history  and 
philosophy  of  her  transportation  system  ;  the  elements  of  her  gigantic  plan  of  convict 
civilization  ;  the  degradation,  the  slavery,  the  exile,  the  hunger,  the  toil,  the  filth,  the 
nakedness,  the  exposure;  the  bayonet,  the  hand  cuff,  the  cat  o'ninetail,  the  leg  chain, 
the  gory  scourge,  the  military  guard,  the  blood  clotted  triangle,  the  chain-ganf ,  the 
iron  hearted  task  master,  the  night  watch,  the  blood  hound,  the  gallows ;  castaway  un- 
wholesome food,  which  has  circumnavigated  the  globe,  saline  petrefactions,  called 
meats,  and  old  as  Her  Majesty  at  that,  devoured  in  the  wooden  night  box  and  convict 
cave  ;  British  subjects  sold  by  government  as  slaves  to  the  highest  bidder,  and  bought  by 
British  christians;  scourgers  appointed  bylaw  ;  the  double  government  cat;  government 
license  for  fifty  lashes ;  labor  during  fifteen  hours  of  the  day,  with  the  thermometer  not  un- 
frequently  at  125!  And  the  benignant  authors  of  all  this,  our  reprovers  on  the  subject  of 
slavery!  I  should  be  ashamed  to  write  the  above,  were  it  not  that  every  phrase  in  ihe 
picture,  is  borrowed  from  British  Jaw  and  English  witnesses.  With  no  wish  to  dispar- 
age the  virtue  and  worth  of  England,  a  single  question  explains  all  we  have  in  view: 
Why  are  the  English  meddling  only  with  American  slavery,  without  attending  to  their 
own  kindred  and  even  worse  systems  of  degradation  and  suffering,  found  in  every  divi- 
sion of  the  Empire,  and  provoking  the  remonstrances  of  the  civilized  world?  Why 
such  care  for  us,  and  sympathy  with  the  Southern  negro,  while  enslaving  and  mal-treat- 
ing  the  negro  and  other  unfortunate  portions  of  mankind  elsewhere?  Why  so  reckless 
of  the  fato  of  40,000,000  of  slaves  in  Russia,  in  connection  *vith  the  Greek  Church? 


. 
54 

Why  so  unmindful  of  the  slavery  of  Italy,  Austria,  Spain,  and  Portugal,  found  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Papal  Church,  while  laboring  so  disinterestedly  for  the  purity  of  the  Amer- 
ican Churches,  as  it  regards  the  evil  of  slavery?  Of  a  hundred  millions  of  negroes, 
found  upon  the  bosom  of  our  world,  no  three  millions  existing  together,  in  any  country, 
can  be  pointed  out,  enjoying  any  thing  like  one  half  the  physical  and  moral  advantages 
enjoyed  by  the  slaves  of  the  Southern  States ;  and  why  is  it  so  much  sympathy  is  felt 
for  the  few,  thus  circumstanced,  and  so  little  interest  cherished  in  behalf  of  the  remain- 
ing millions,  at  least  in  no  better,  and  believed  to  be  in  a  much  worse  condition] 

Dr.  Durbin,  fresh  from  the  great  theatre  of  abolition  ethics,  and  known  to  be  an  acute 
observer  of  men  and  things,  says,  "the  truth  is,  that  under  the  present  worki-ng  of 
British  institutions,  the  mass  of  the  people  are,  SLAVES,  and  the  few  are  MASTERS,  without 
the  responsibilities  cf  masters.  The  physical  condition  of  the  greater  part  of  the  slaves  in 
the  Southern  States  of  America,  is  better  than  that  of  millions  in  England  and  Ireland — 
their  moral  and  intellectual  condition  CANNOT  be  worse."  Plainly,  the  millions  of  the 
common  mass  of  England  and  Ireland,  are  more  truly  and  miserably  slaves,  than  the 
negroes  of  our  Southern  States.  Now  will  it  or  not,  be  the  "sense"  of  the  Majority  of 
the  late  General  Conference,  that  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Preachers,  the  Buntings,  the 
Newtons,  the  Jacksons,  and  Dixons,  who  certainly  rank  with  the  "masters"  and  not 
with  the  "slaves,"  and  who  "travel  at  large  and  oversee  the  work"  Wesley  left  to  be 
superintended  by  them,  shall  "desist"  from  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  as  "over- 
seers of  the  Church  of  God,"  until  this  "impediment"  is  removed,  and  the  millions  of 
English  and  Irish  slaves  are  freed,  whether  they  can  be  or  not?  And  until  they  do  this, 
can  they  be  regarded  as  any  better  than  poor  Bishop  Andrew,  who  was  made  a  slave 
holder  without  his  consent,  by  the  "working"  of  similar  "institutions?"  But  further, 
for  the  consideration  of  our  trans-Atlantic  friends.  It  is  known  to  them — to  all,  that 
large  portions  of  the  children  of  Africa,  have  existed  in  a  state  of  slavery  for  3,000 
years,  and  it  is  equally  well  known,  that  unconnected  with  all  other  races,  one  portion 
of  the  negro  race,  since  the  earliest  dawn  of  history,  has  been  enslaved  to  another,  and 
that  in  greater  proportion  too,  than  to  any  other  race.  There  are  ten,  perhaps  more 
than  twenty  negro  masters  in  Africa,  to  every  white  one  in  the  United  Slates,  and  own- 
ing ten,  if  not  twenty  times  as  many  negroes.  And  it  is  also  true,  that  those  portions 
of  Africa,  where  the  slave  trade  with  the  white  man  is  unknown,  are  the  most  inveterate 
slave  regions.  It  has  been  estimated,  that  something  like  nine  tenths  of  the  whole  six- 
ty millions  of  Africa,  are  in  fact  slaves.  The  English  can  doubtless  account  for  the 
origin  and  existence  of  American  slavery,  as  they  are  the  authors  of  it,  and  are  now 
battening  upon  its  gains.  But  how  will  they  account  for  the  state  of  things  in  Africa? 
And  why  so  much  zeal  in  this  direction  and  so  little  in  that?  In  all  the  negro  islands, 
(many  and  populous,)  of  the  Indian  archipelago,  the  negro  is  enslaved  to  the  negro. 
Why  too,  are  the  negroes  of  this  and  every  other  country,  St.  Domingo  and  the  other 
West  India  Islands  especially,  so  utterly  and  proverbially  indifferent  to  the  condition 
of  their  fellow  negroes  in  slavery?  In  no  instance  have  they,  as  a  people,  made  a  move 
for  the  freedom  of  the  negro,  or  manifested  any  general  solicitude  on  the  subject. 
Does  there  or  not,  appear  to  be  some  deep  and  primary  reason  for  such  startling  results? 
Grant  that  England  and  the  North  can  satisfactorily  explain  the  matter,  so  far  as  they 
are  the  authors  of  American  slavery  ;  still,  is  there  not  much  beside  this,  which  needs  to 
be  explained?  Why  a  destiny  so  untoward,  for  every  portion  of  the  African  race,  for 
now  a  term  of  at  least.  3,700  years?  All  our  hopes  and  fears  centre  in  the  conviction, 
that  whether  for  good  or  evil,  or  it  may  be  a  mysterious  dispensation  of  both,  the  hand 
of  God  must  connect  with  such  a  destiny! 


**    55 

Similar  reasoning  applies  to  the  Northern  division  of  our  own  country.     New  Eng- 
land capital,  combined  with  the  acquisitive  ardor  and  daring  enterprise  of  her  hardy 
sons,  gave  birth  to  a  large  proportion  of  the  whole  amount  of  American  slavery,  as  well 
in  the  South  as  North.     An  almost  incalculable  amount  of  Northern  capital,  is  at  this 
time  invested  in  Southern  slaves.     The  hundreds  of  Northern  men,  annually  settling 
in  the  Southern  States  and  Territories,  are  known  promptly  and  without  hesitation,  to 
become  slave  holders  ;  and  the  Simon-pureism  of  Church  and  State — of  Pilgrim  and  Pu- 
ritan— fresh  from  the  most  approved  nurseries  of  abolition  zealotry,  yields  to  the  sug- 
gestions of  convenience  and  interest,  in  enlarging  and  upholding  the  system  of  Southern 
slavery.     Even  temporary  residents  in  the  South,  from  the  North,  and  belonging  to 
Northern  Churches,  become  slave  holders  in  instances  not  a  few.     Indeed  very  few  of 
the  New  England  and  Northern  Clergy,  taking  the  range  of  all  denominations,  emi- 
grate South,  without  becoming  slave  holders,  as  soon  as  they  find  themselves  able.     And 
a  great  many,  the  owners  of  slaves  in  the  South,  sell  them  there,  and  return  North  to 
live,  it  may  be,  in  ease  and  affluence,  upon  the  "price  of  blood,"  in  the  parlance  of  anti- 
slavery  ethics.     And  in  this  connection,  the  Northern  Methodist  Church,  and  especially 
the  Ministry,  are  entitled  to  notice.     With  motive  we  have  nothing  to  do,  except  as 
general  conduct  must  be  regarded  as  being  its  only  true  exponent.     What  is  had  in 
view,  therefore,  by  the  ceaseless  increasing  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  must  be 
judged  of  by  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  agitators,  in  other  respects — particularly 
in  relation  to  vice  and  the  vicious,  in  other  departments  of  evil  and  classes  of  evil- 
doers.    In  this  regard,  it  is  pertinent  and  important  to  enquire — are  they  equally  zealous 
and  as  intolerant  in  reference  to  other  forms  of  evil,   as  in  the  case  of  slavery]     Are 
they  as  intolerant  of  other  forms  of  slavery  as  of  negro  slavery?     Is  it  oppression  they 
hate  and  would  destroy — oppression  in  all  its  forms  and  wherever  found?     Do  they  seek 
out  and  relieve  the  enslaved  and  oppressed  of  every  relation  and  condition— the  wife, 
defrauded   of  her  rights  in  a  state  of  hated  servitude — the   oppressed  child,  crushed 
beneath  the  unfeeling  brutality  of  parental  despotism — the  hired  servant,  wronged  and 
borne  down  by  a  tyranny,  to  which  necessity  subjects  him — the  miserable  slaves  of  un- 
protected apprenticeship — the  unfortunate  debtor  and  inmate  of  the  poor  house,  deprived 
of  unforfeited  rights  by  the  indifference  and  obduracy  of  public  and  popular  feeling? 
If  such  be  their  conduct,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  question  their  motives  as  anti-slavery 
reformers  for  the  benefit  of  the  South.     But  by  how  far  such  is  not  their  conduct,  we 
impugn  their  motives,  as  at  least  of  very  doubtful  character.     When  the  benefit  of  the 
slave  is  sought,  by  cursing  the  slave  holder,  we  cannot  admit  the  plea  of  good  motive, 
and  must  consider  hostility  to  the  South  as  the  real  cause  of  the  movement.     Millions 
in  the  civilized  world  are  the  victims  of  a  legal  and  social  despotism,  incomparably 
worse  than  Southern  slavery.     They  are  more  ignorant,  have  less  control  of  their  per- 
sons and  actions,  have  less  to  eat,  and  food  of  a  worse  quality,  they  are  worse  clothed — 
they  work  harder  and  longer,  in  every  twenty  four  hours,  have  less  contentment,  less 
motive  and  emulous  feeling,  and  in  every  respect,  are  in  a  state  of  debasement  more 
utterly  hopeless  than  American  slaves.     And  why  is  it,  feeling  and  sympathy  are  not 
manifested  in  their  behalf,  in  a  manner  corresponding  with  abolition  sympathy  for  the 
Southern  slave?     What  interest  is  felt  or  manifested  for  the  millions  in  the  civilized 
world,  now  in  a  state  of  vassalage  or  villenage,  two  systems  of  slavery,  equal  at  least 
in  evil  and  injury,  to  the  system  of  American  slavery.     Not  equally  zealous  with  re- 
gard to  other  social  evils,  what  must  be  the  inference,  as  it  regards  their  motives?     And 
how  as  it  regards  crime?     Take  the  vices  rife  and  dominant  on  every  side  of  them. 
Look  at  the  commonness  and  insolence  of  impiety,  stalking  all  about  them.     Blasphe- 


56 

my,  profaneness,  drunkenness,  Sabbath  breaking,  dishonesty,  lying,  and  defamation  ; 
and  so  of  the  whole  tide  of  human  abomination,  rolling  up  before  them  ;  are  they  equal- 
ly jenlous  and  exacting,  in  their  attempts  to  suppress  Mes??  And  if  not,  what  is  the 
inference  again'?  Is  there  not  a  manifest  inconsistency,  between  their  clamorous  ag- 
gressive movements,  as  it  regards  slavery,  and  their  want  of  zeal  and  activity  in  the 
suppression  of  general  popular  crime,  every  where  surrounding  them]  If  conscience 
and  religious  principle  were  the  exciting  causes,  one  human  interest  would  not  be  es- 
poused at  the  manifest  expense  and  to  the  great  detriment  of  others.  Why  this  frenzi- 
ed sentimentality — this  delerium  of  opinion  and  feeling  on  the  subject  of  slavery;  com- 
bined with  such  invincible  Sadducean  torpor  as  to  other  and  worse  forms  of  oppression 
and  vice,  and  especially  proverbial  indifference  to  the  moral  and  immortal  wants  of  the 
negro]  Notwithstanding  the  thousands  of  free  negroes  within  their  limits,  alt  the  abo- 
litionism, love  of  the  negro,  hatred  of  slavery,  all  the  perverted  facts,  distorted  state- 
ments, declamatory  defamation,  and  in  some  instances  honest  and  able  appeals,  connect- 
ed with  an  interminable  array  of  newspaper  and  pamphlet  warfare,  conventions,  meet- 
ings, lectures,  agents,  and  importation  of  foreign  aid — all  these  within  the  wide  spread 
territory  of  the  New  England,  Providence,  Maine,  Vermont,  and  Hew  Hampshire  Con- 
ferences, have  not  brought  a  solitary  negro  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at 
least  to  remain  there  long  enough  to  be  reported.  So  say  the  ministers  of  the  current 
year.  How,  why  is  this]  Here  is  the  negro— the  free  negro  in  the  free  and  happy 
North.  Here  too  are  his  own  dear  friends — his  patent  benefactors,  laboring  as  above 
for  his  good,  day  and  night,  and  even  the.  Sabbath  not  intermitting  the  struggle,  and  yet, 
Heaven  favored  as  he  is,  in  the  very  Goshen  of  the  moral  world,  with  a  superfluity  of 
blessing  for  himself,  and  the  popular  curse,  piled  mountain  high  upon  his  oppressor,  the 
incorrigible  negro  is  not  converted — none  of  them  can  be  got  into  the  Church — no,  not 
one!  Turn  now  to  the  Troy,  Black  river,  Erie,  Oneida,  Michigan,  Rock  river,  Gene- 
see,  North  Ohio,  Illinois — nine  Conferences  ;  in  all  these  we  have  less  than  a  thousand 
negroes  in  the  Church!  What  does  it  mean  ;  how  is  it  to  be  explained]  How  does  it 
happen,  that  the  free  blacks  in  the  non-slave  holding  States,  have  been  so  very  limitcd- 
]y  benefitted  and  influenced  by  a  ministry,  so  indefatigable  in  the  abuse  and  denuncia- 
tion of  slavery]  Is  it  because  the  negroes  have  discernment  enough  to  see,  that  their 
wordy  benefactors  have  really  never  done  any  thing  for  the  good  of  the  negro,  soul  or 
body — that  they  do  not  care  for  the  negro — that  they  are  not  the  true  friends  of  the  ne- 
gro] Why  drive  a  trade  with  the  sympathies  of  those  they  find  themselves  able  to  ex- 
cite and  agitate,  but  leave  the  poor  negro  to  turn  their  abstractions  and  declamation,  to 
what  account  he  can— that  is  none  at  all,  involving  good  of  any  kind]  Who  of  these 
have  volunteered  to  appear  in  the  South,  to  instruct,  console,  and  cheer  the  negro,  amid 
the  hardships  of  his  lot.]  Addressing  the  very  men  of  whom  we  are  speaking,  Bishop 
Hedding  says,  "if  you  feel  as  much  for  the  slaves  as  our  Southern  brethren  do — if  you 
are  willing  to  labor  as  hard  and  suffer  as  much  for  the  benefit  of  the  slaves,  as  those 
brethren  do,  go  and  help  them  ;  there  is  work  enough  there  for  you  all."  This  noble  and 
yet  blistering  challenge  was  thrown  out  by  the  Bishop  seven  years  ago,  but  no  one  of 
these  intrepid  and  devoted  reformers  of  the  Church,  has  appeared  in  the  South  for  the 
salvation  of  the  negro.  They  remain  at  home,  and  content  themselves  with  fiery  ha- 
rangues and  blustering  paragraphs — revolutionary  conventions  and  seditious  reports, 
and  we  need  scarcely  add,  that  such  cheap  displays  of  humanity  and  showy  exhibitions 
of  feeling,  costing  nothing  but  words,  can  never  deceive  the  negro  or  the  friends  of  the 
negro  in  the  South.  But  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  enquire,  what  has  been  the  real  valua 
of  emancipation  to  the  negro,  say  in  the  United  States  and  West  Indies,  where  well  uu- 


57 


derstood  experiments  have  been  made,  in  due  form.  Ever  since  emancipation  in  St. 
Domingo,  the  mulattoes  and  blacks  have  been  in  a  state  of  active  hostile  array  against 
each  other.  The  British  Foreign  Quarterly  says  of  the  former,  "they  were  ignorant, 
covetous,  lazy,  proud,  vindictive,  and  cruel,  and  almost  totally  destitute  of  moral  feel- 
ing ;"  of  the  latter,  "they  saw  the  doors  of  their  cage  open,  and  like  tigers,  slipped  out 
to  rend  and  tear."  Since  their  emancipation,  the  proportion  of  illegitimate  births  in 
the  Island,  has  been 'increased  to  three  in  every  four.  The  habitual  invincible  worth- 
lessness  of  both  races,  has  continued,  with  very  little  variation,  ever  since  they  obtain- 
ed their  freedom,  and  may  be  very  justly  estimated  by  the  famous  Code  Rurale,  by  which 
labor  was  made  compulsory  to  lessen  the  amount  of  theft,  robbery,  and  starvation,  in- 
this  model  Republic  of  emancipated  negroes.  The  same  Journal  informs  us,  sustained 
by  other  authorities,  that  not  only  in  Hayti,  but  all  the  West  Indies,  even  in  Jamaica, 
whenever  a  fire,  or  any  calamity  of  the  kind  takes  place,  the  emancipated  negroes  in- 
variably look  on  in  stupid  sullenness,  without  any  attempt  at  assistance,  and  frequently 
indeed,  the  first  flash  of  a  conflagration  or  heave  of  an  earthquake,  is  the  signal  for 
plunder.  The  production  of  St.  Domingo,  since  the  emancipation  of  the  negroes,  has 
been  reduced  as  150  to  15.  Thousands  of  sugar  plantations,  have  been  utterly  aban- 
doned by  the  free  negroes,  because  they  found  the  Banana  and  other  spontaneous  fruits, 
would  keep  them  from  starving  whether  they  worked  or  not.  Professor  Wilson,  of 
Edinburg,  says  of  England  "she  has  forced  upon  the  West  India  Islands,  the  monstrous 
project  of  negro  emancipation — a  step  which  has  already  reduced  to  one  half,  the  pro- 
duction of  those  fine  colonies,  and  given  a  blow  to  the  prosperity  of  both  the  negro  and 
European  population,  from  which  neither  can  ever  recover.  It  soon  became  manifest 
that  the  negroes  would  not  work."  In  the  Island  of  Cuba,  from  1775  to  1827,  fifty  two 
years,  the  increase  of  the  free  black  population,  was  only  246,  while  that  of  the  slave 
population  was  547.  A  similar  state  of  things,  has  always  been  presented,  in  the 
United  Slates.  Are  privation  and  extreme  suffering,  favorable  to  rapidity  of  increase 
in  population?  If  not,  what  must  be  the  inference? 

The  effects  of  emancipation  and  the  condition  of_ free  negroes  in  the  United  States,  are 
matters  too  well  known  to  require  proof  or  illustration  with  the  well  informed.  In 
Massachusetts,  only  one  seventy  fourth  part  of  the  entire  population  is  African,  and 
yet  one  sixth  of  all  their  convicts  are  negroes.  In  Connecticut,  one  thirty  fourth  are 
negroes,  furnishing  one  third  of  all  the  convicts.  In  New  York,  one  thirty  fifth,  and 
one  fourth  of  the  convicts  in  the  city  prisons  are  free  negroes.  In  New  Jersey,  one 
thirteenth  furnishing  one  third  of  all  the  prisoners.  In  Pennsylvania,  one  thirty  fourth 
and  over  one  third  of  all  the  convicts  negroes.  One  fourth  of  the  whole  expense  con- 
nected with  the  prison  systems  of  the  entire  North,  is  incurred  by  crime  committed  by 
one  twentieth  part  of  the  population.  The  same  is  strictly  true  with  regard  to  the  pau- 
per expenditures  of  all  the  Northern  States.  Facts  of  this  kind  can  never  become  so  stale 
as  not  to  be  startling.  We  glance  at  them  fora  single  purpose  only  ;  it  is  to  show  that 
amid  all  the  appliances  and  under  the  most  hopeful  influence,  of  anti-slavery  philan- 
throphy,  the  degradation  of  the  negro  continues  unchanged,  and  may  be  seen  in  all  the 
innumerable  forms  of  indolence,  vice,  and  misery.  In  Virginia,  where  no  legal  barrier 
prevents,  in  a  population  of  40,000  free  negroes,  less  than  200  are  found  to  own  a  sin- 
gle foot  of  land.  And  the  same  is  true  in  about  the  same  proportion,  in  all  the  States, 
slave  and  free.  A  well  informed  Northern  Clergyman  says,  "every  State  seems  to 
cherish  a  disposition  to  be  free  from  a  free  black  population.  In  all  the  walks  of  life, 
in  every  society,  upon  every  path  which  lies  before  others,  to  honor,  and  fame,  and 
glory,  a  moral  incubus  pursues  and  fastens  upon  them.  There  appears  to  exist,  in  the 
8 


breasts  of  white  men,  in  this  country  generally,  a  prejudice  against  the  color  of  the 
African,  which  nothing  short  of  Divine  power  can  remove.  It  is  thought  by  many  at 
the  North,  that  immediate  emancipation  would  render  it  necessary  for  the  whites  io  ex- 
terminate the  blacks,  or  abandon  the  Southern  soil." — Comer  on  Slavery.  Dr.  Fisk 
boldly  maintained,  throughout  the  hottest  of  the  abolition  contest,  in  the  East  and 
North,  that  either  immediate  emancipation,  or  emancipation  at  all,  without  removal, 
would  be  worse  than  slavery,  to  all  concerned.  Dr.  Phillip  attempts  to  account  for  the 
unmitigated  aversion  to  the  color  of  the  African,  so  universally  prevalent  in  the  United 
States,  especially  in  the  North,  by  ascribing  it  to  the  injuries,  we  as  a  people,  have  in- 
flicted on  that  unfortunate  race.  Our  only  concern  at  present  is  with  the  fact,  showing 
that  the  negro  has  no  chance  to  rise  or  improve  in  this  country.  A  Northern  author, 
in  an  admirable  "Plea  for  Africa,"  declares,  "the  humanity  of  slave  holders  in  the 
Southern  States,  has  far  exceeded  the  feeling  indulged  toward  the  blacks  in  my  native 
New  England  or  the  Middle  States.  A  much  kindlier  feeling  is  indulged  towards  the 
blacks  at  the  South  than  at  the  North."  The  whole  currenl  of  evidence  on  the  subject 
tends  to  show,  that  the  reprobate  South  is  the  only  section  in  the  United  States,  where 
any  considerable  attention  is  paid  to  the  wants  of  the  negro.  Of  the  free  negroes 
of  New  England,  of  Connecticut,  of  New  Haven  even,  Dr.  Bacon  enquires,  "are  they 
not,  in  the  estimation  of  the  community,  and  in  their  own  consciousness,  aliens  and  out- 
casts, in  the  midst  of  the  people."  Dr.  Dana,  of  the  North,  says,  "there  are  princi- 
ples of  repulsion  between  them  and  us,  which  can  never  be  overcome."  The  unfortu- 
nate negro  may  cease  to  acknowledge  a  master,  but  cannot  deprive  himself  of  the  con- 
sciousness, that  he  belongs  to  a  degraded  class,  which  as  a  class  can  never  rise  to 
equality  with  the  white  race  about  him.  The  North  has  inspired  the  negro  with  ex- 
pectations above  his  condition  ;  duped  him  with  hopes  he  can  never  realize,  and  dis- 
gusted him  with  a  lot,  from  which  he  can  never  escape,  and  from  which  the  North  has 
done  nothing  to  enable  him  to  escape. 

The  city  of  Baltimore,  presents  probably  the  largest  and  most  intelligent  mass  of 
free  persons  of  color,  found  in  the  United  States.  A  large  number  of  them  are  per- 
sons of  reading  and  reflection.  These  in  an  appeal  to  the  citizens  of  Baltimore,  and 
through  them  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  say,  "we  reside  among  you  and  yet 
are  strangers — natives,  yet  not  citizens — surrounded  by  the  freest  people  and  the 
most  republican  institutions  in  the  world,  and  yet  enjoying  none  of  the  immunities  of 
freedom.  Difference  of  color,  the  servitude  of  most  of  our  brethren,  &c.  will  not  allow 
us  to  mingle  with  you  in  the  benefits  of  citizenship.  As  long  as  we  remain  among  you, 
we  shall  be  a  distinct  caste— an  extraneous  mass  of  men  irrecoverably  excluded  from 
your  institutions.  Though  we  are  not  slaves,  we  are  not  free.  We  do  not  and  never 
shall  participate  in  the  enviable  privileges  which  we  constantly  witness."  Judge  Black- 
ford  says,  "they  are  of  no  service  here,  (free  States,)  to  the  community  or  themselves. 
They  live  in  a  country  the  favorite  abode  of  liberty,  without  the  enjoyment  of  her 
rights.  To  all  these  the  black  man  is  a  stranger."  "Here  the  features,  the  complex- 
ion, and  every  peculiarity  of  his  person  pronounce  upon  the  ransomed  slave  another 
doom." — C.  on  Slavery.  "If  liberated  and  left  among  the  whites,  they  would  be  a 
constant  source  of  annoyance,  corruption,  and  danger.  They  could  never  be  trusted  as 
faithful  citizens.  Each  would  regard  the  other  with  painful  suspicion  and  apprehen- 
sion. It  is  essential  to  the  interests  of  each,  that  they  be  separated." — Dr.  Miller. 
"The  removal  of  the  colored  population  is,  I  think,  a  common  object,  by  no  means  con- 
fined to  the  slave  States  ;  the  whole  Union  would  be  strengthened  by  it,  and  relieved  from 
a  danger  whose  extent  can  scarcely  be  estimated." — Chief  Justice  Marshall.  "A  polit- 


59 

ical  evil  which  we  have  inherited— a  stain  to  be  washed  from  the  national  escutcheon." — 
Gov.  Vroom,  "Ourselves,  our  children,  our  land,  and  every  beloved  institution  of  our 
country,  are  deeply  involved" — Bishop  Meade.  "The  free  black  whom  prejudice  con- 
signs to  a  moral  debasement  in  the  North,  is  as  deeply  injured  as  the  slave  who,  in  the 
South,  is  held  in  physical  bondage.  The  mass  of  crime  committed  by  Africans  is 
greater  in  proportion  to  numbers  in  the  non-slave  holding  than  in  the  slave  holding 
States,  and  as  a  general  rule,  the  degree  of  comfort  enjoyed  by  them  is  inferior.  They 
are  destined  to  be  forever  proscribed  and  debased  by  our  prejudices." — B.  F.  Butler. 
"The  breath  of  opinion  poisons  all  their  efforts.  They  feel  it  is  impossible  to  contend 
with  the  whites.  They  call  more  loudly  for  our  sympathy  than  their  brethren  in  bon- 
dage."— Rev.  Mr.  Bestor. 

That  part  of  the  Protest  which  shows  the  whole  Church,  North  as  well  as  South,  lo 
be  plainly  and  unavoidably  connected  with  slavery,  is  not  noticed  by  the  Reply  at  all, 
although  a  great  portion  of  its  reasoning  turns  upon  this  point  entirely.  The  boast  of 
the  North,  generally,  of  freedom  from  slavery,  is  equally  fallacious.  Where  are  the 
descendants  of  the  thousands  of  slaves  sold  by  the  progenitors  of  Northern  abolition- 
ists in  the  Southern  States  and  West  Indies'!  Sold  and  deeded  by  them  into  perpetual 
captivity,  how  is  the  slave  trading  North  to  get  rid  of  the  evil!  What  are  these  aboli- 
tionists doing  with  the  "price  of  blood"  thus  left  them  by  their  sainted  sires?  In  work- 
ing out  their  freedom  from  slavery,  what  of  the  poor  Pequod  Indians  enslaved  by  them 
at  home,  and  shipped  in  large  numbers  to  the  Bermudas,  and  there  sold  into  intermina- 
ble slavery?  Who  owns,  and  is  consuming  the  millions  in  the  North,  acquired  by  ac- 
tual, regular,  and  protracted  merchandise,  in  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men,  connected 
with  the  slave  trade  between  the  periods  of  1650  and  1845?  How  are  the  children  of 
a  slave  holding  and  slave  trading  ancestry,  who  have  consigned  thousands  to  perpetual 
servitude,  from  mere  motives  of  gain,  to  rid  themselves  of  themoraZ  relations  and  ef- 
fects of  slavery?  How  many  now  engaged  in  spreading  the  evangelism  of  anti-slave- 
ry, have  resided  South,  owned  slaves,  not  by  inheritance  or  in  right  of  marriage,  but  by 
purchase,  have  bought  low  and  sold  high,  and  returning  to  the  North,  are  now  living  on 
the  proceeds  of  slavery,  and  weekly  contributing,  in  their  own  patent  phrase,  the 
"price  of  blood"  in  the  diffusion  of  abolition  abuse?  Dr.  Dana  says,  "let  us  not  ima- 
gine, for  a  moment,  that  we,  in  this  Northern  clime,  are  exempt  from  that  enormous 
guilt  connected  with  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  which  we  are  so  ready  to  appropriate 
to  our  brethren  in  distant  States.  In  New  England  are  the  forges  which  have  framed 
fetters  and  manacles  for  the  limbs  of  unoffending  Africans.  The  iron  of  New  Eng- 
land has  pierced  their  anguished  souls.  In  New  England  are  found  the  overgrown 
fortunes — the  proud  palaces,  which  have  been  reared  up  from  the  blood  and  sufferings 
of  these  unhappy  men.  The  guilt  is  strictly  national — national  then,  let  the  expiation 
be.  Let  the  whole  country  confess  its  guilt."  New  England  and  foreign  slave  mer- 
chants filled  the  South  with  slaves,  aided  by  the  sanction  and  participation  of  the  Bri- 
tish government.  The  oppressor's  gold  has  enriched  the  North  as  well  as  the  South. 
The  truth  of  history  speaks  in  the  lines  of  Mrs.  Sigourney — "The  frown  of  deep  in- 
dignant blame  bends  not  on  Southern  climes  alone.  To  dark  slavery's  yoke  severe,  our 
father's  helped  to  bow  the  neck."  If  the  whole  matter  in  question  be  fully  and  fairly 
examined,  the  North  may  find  itself  as  deep  in  debt  to  the  justice  of  God,  as  even  the 
South;  and  as  it  regards  the  slave  trade,  infinitely  more  so.  How  many  more  or  less 
than  a  score  of  Northern  vessels,  with  men  and  capital  in  necessary  proportion,  are  at 
this  moment  engaged  in  the  slave  trade  between  Africa  and  the  Brazilian  ports  alone? 
Who  is  ignorant  of  the  amount  of  Northern  capital  engaged  in  the  slave  trade  with  the 


GO 

Island  of  Cuba,  after  the  opening  of  the  port  of  Havana  to  foreign  slave  vessels,  in 
1789,  and  still  further  in  1791?  Immense  portions  of  the  wealth  of  the  North  have 
been  acquired  by  means  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade ;  and  slavery,  in  the  light  of 
means  connected  with  the  end,  is  now  interwoven  with  the  whole  civil  and  social  econo- 
my of  Northern  society.  It  cleaves  to  the  soil,  the  homesteads,  the  churches,  the  grave- 
yards, the  colleges,  the  schools,  the  political  economy,  and  religious  enterprise  of  the  land. 
The  real  difference  between  the  North  and  the  South  appears  to  be,  the  one  holds  the 
slave,  and  the  other  the  price  of  the  slave.  The  one  has  the  power  to  obey  the  com- 
mand of  God,  respecting  the  slave,  and  is,  of  course,  responsible  for  the  use  of  it. 
The  other  bartered  the  slave  and  the  responsibility  together,  for  gold,  and  by  way  of 
educing  good  from  "evil,"  secured  a  preferred  equivalent  for  the  one  and  the  other. 

The  Southern  portion  of  the  Church,  having  any  connection  at  all,  are  connected  with 
slavery  under  the  high  and  direct  sanction  of  law  ;  and  how  will  it  be  made  appear  that 
such  connection  is  criminal,  while  a  multiform  connection  with  slavery  is  found  in  the 
North,  in  direct  violation  of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  in  some  if 
not  all  of  its  aspects,  and  yet  not  criminal?  Slaves,  recognized  as  property,  by  express 
provision  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  are,  in  instances  almost  innumerable,  decoy- 
ed or  stolen  from  their  owners,  secreted,  protected,  and  aided  in  effecting  their  escape, 
although  after  being  thus  stolen  or  decoyed  off,  they  are  as  really  and  truly  slaves,  and 
the  property  of  others,  as  though  nothing  of  the  kind  had  occurred.  Wherever  they 
are  found,  in  Northern  States,  they  belong,  by  right  of  law,  and  the  pledged  consent  of 
every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  to  those  from  whom  they  have  been  stolen,  or  in- 
duced to  escape,  and  no  length  of  residence,  North,  affects  the  title  of  the  owner.  In 
this  way,  all  engaged  in  this  species  of  abolition,  or  in  any  way  furthering  or  approving 
it,  have  a  direct  connection  with  slaves  and  slavery,  in  open  violation  of  law ;  that  is, 
they  take,  or  otherwise  aid,  in  depriving  the  owner  of  his  property,  without  his  knowl- 
edge or  consent,  and  thus,  in  defiance  of  law,  connect  themselves  with  slavery  by 
means  of  theft  and  robbery.  We  should  like  to  know  how  this  class  of  "men-steal- 
ers,"  (such  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  country,)  can  escape  the  charge  of  con- 
nection with  slavery,  or  how  they  expect  to  dissolve  such  connection  !  Entailed  upon 
the  South  by  means  of  British  policy  and  Northern  commercial  enterprise,  how  does  it 
happen  that  the  curse  of  slavery  is  to  be  borne  by  the  South  alone?  What  baptism  has 
washed  the  stains  of  the  original  lepers?  By  what  vicarious  arrangement  have  their 
sins  been  fastened  upon  the  South,  as  the  scape-goat  by  which  they  are  to  be  borne 
away?  How  many  Northern  Methodist  Preachers  were  ordained  by  Bishop  Coke,  du- 
ring his  connection  with  slavery  in  the  West  Indies,  between  1788  and  1792,  and  how 
has  the  Northern  Church  got  rid  of  the  evil  thus  entailed  upon  them?  All  the  superior 
Councils  of  the  Church,  since  1780,  have  consisted,  in  part,  of  slave  holders,  and  al- 
ways found  in  many  of  the  Annual  Conferences;  slavery  has  been  mixed  up  with  all 
the  federal  relations  of  the  Church  for  65  years,  and  how  is  the  Church  to  rid  itself  of 
this  taint?  The  evil  in  the  South  has  its  warrant  in  the  law  of  its  production ;  in 
causes  over  which  we  had  no  control,  and  with  'he  existence  and  operation  of  which, 
those  who  now  abuse  us  most,  English  and  Northern  abolitionists,  are  more  intimate- 
ly connected  than  all  the  world  beside.  The  North  is  a  stockholder  in  the  slave  trade 
as  truly  as  the  South,  and  can  never  cease  to  be  one,  until  the  gains,  by  means  of  it, 
in  all  the  successive  accumulations  of  principal  and  interest  shall,  to  the  last  cent,  be 
expended  in  efforts  to  remove  the  evil  they  have  inflicted  on  this  country,  on  Africa, 
the  countries  of  South  America,  the  Islands  of  the  West  Indian  Archipelago,  and 
other  portious  of  the  globe. 


We  have  seen  that  slavery  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  national  arrangement. 
The  whole  nation  was  originally  concerned  in  its  introduction  and  prevalence  among 
us.  The  whole  nation  consented  to  its  legal  perpetuation,  by  its  formal  recognition  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  could  only  become  national,  in  the  Union  qf 
the  States,  by  consent  and  contract  of  the  North.  All  statesmen  and  jurists  treat  it 
as  a  national  concern.  A  Northern  reviewer  says,  "the  evil  is  ours  as  well  as  theirs; 
we  are  ready  to  appropriate  it  all  to  our  Southern  brethren,  but  we  have  no  power  or 
right  thus  to  wash  our  hands.  From  the  North  have  gone  ships,  and  seamen,  and  tra- 
ders in  human  flesh,  that  have  been  polluted  by  the  inhuman  traffic,  and  the  'pieces  of 
silver'  gained  by  them  have  been  apportioned  to  the  North  :  the  North  have  shared 
largely  in  the  accursed  spoils."  Is  the  North  ready  to  consecrate  these  gains  to  the 
removal  of  the  evil?  Until  this  is  done,  if  no  longer,  the  North  remains,  of  necessi- 
ty, connected  with  the  evil,  as  they  have  merely  exchanged  the  slave  for  his  value  in 
the  shape  of  other  capital.  Suppose  too,  the  North  were  called  upon,  as  the  means  of 
atoning  for  the  evils  inflicted  upon  the  nation,  by  the  importation  of  intoxicating  li- 
quors, and  other  demoralizing  means  of  gain,  during  the  last  two  hundred  years,  to 
sacrifice  the  amount  of  property  now  connected  with  the  slave  system  of  the  South, 
say  800,000,000  of  dollars,  which  they  require  the  South  to  yield,  and  be  thankful  that 
they  are  let  off"  so  lightly!  What  requirement  of  God  or  man  would  secure  such  an 
alienation  of  property  on  the  part  of  those  who  exact  it  of  the  South,  in  propitiation  of 
Northern  displeasure,  on  account  of  the  evil  of  slavery?  If  not  prepared  for  anything 
of  the  kind,  may  they  not  learn  a  lesson  of  forbearance  toward  the  South,  especially 
as  they  contributed  so  largely  toward  the  establishment  of  the  property  system  of  the 
South?  How  will  it  be  shown  that  it  is  either  honest  or  honorable  in  the  North,  while 
enjoying  the  advantages  of  the  national  compact,  to  demand  back  the  price  they  were 
once  so  glad  to  pay  for  it?  In  what  sense  slavery  is  national,  and  in  what  provincial 
only,  has  been  shown  with  sufficient  clearness  in  this  discussion.  And  as  slavery, 
within  specified  limitations,  is  a  principle  of  public  policy,  those  who  assail  it  as  an 
outrage,  can  only  do  so  by  assailing  the  civil  compact  uniting  the  several  States  of  the 
confederacy.  Or,  turning  to  the  provincial  aspects  of  the  question,  they  give  their 
local  views  and  policy  an  extra-territorial  application,  contrary  to,  and  in  violation  of 
the  federal  treaty  rights  of  American  citizenship ;  and  in  doing  so,  must,  of  necessity, 
act  in  bad  faith.  We  are  glad  to  know  that  thousands  in  the  North,  opposed  to  slave- 
ry, are  not  disposed  to  disturb  the  South  by  any  agitation  of  the  subject ;  and  by  how 
far  they  discountenance  agitation  in  this,  or  any  other  way,  the  South  will  accord  to 
them  the  justice  and  generosity  to  which  their  conduct  entitles  them.  Nor  can  we 
perceive  what  damage  or  disreputation  would  accrue  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  of 
abolition  and  anti-slavery,  were  they  to  take  a  lesson  from  the  conduct  of  this  portion 
of  their  fellow  citizens,  and  especially  from  that  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  on  this 
subject. 

In  the  application  of  this  reasoning,  Methodism  is  no  exception  to  the  general  rule. 
The  impurity,  the  hated  leprosy  is  spread  all  over  the  North  by  the  constitution  and 
laws,  and  by  consequence,  stipulated  consent  and  established  usages  of  the  Church. 
The  action  of  the  last  General  Conference,  if  carried  out,  will  prove  but  an  anodyne, 
not  a  remedy.  Much  else  will  remain  to  be  done.  Pragmatic  pertinacity  in  excluding 
slavery  from  the  Episcopacy,  say  the  Executive  Department,  while  it  is  allowed  to  re- 
main in  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences — the  Legislative  and  Judicial  Departments 
of  the  Church,  deemed  by  the  majority  of  so  much  more  importance— will  always  ap- 
pear to  tie  impartial  and  well-informed,  as  ridiculous  as  it  is  absurd  and  inconsistent. 


Who  can  help  being  struck  with  the  contrast  between  the  conduct  of  Prophets  and 
Apostles,  in  relation  to  the  evil  of  slavery,  and  the  course  pursued  by  the  Northern 
abolition  and  anti-slavery  party  or  parties  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  Slave- 
ry, perpetual  hereditary  slavery,  existed  in  the  Jewish,  and  also  in  the  Christian  Church, 
and  slaves  and  masters,  under  Divine  direction  and  influence,  constituted  portions  of 
both,  and  in  both,  at  different  times  and  in  various  ways,  God  himself  interposed  and 
legislated  for  the  regulation  of  the  evil— for  such  it  seems  to  us  it  must  have  been  re- 
garded, and  might  have  been,  without  affecting  our  reasoning.  All  this  was  true  and 
yet  no  directions  given — no  movement  authorized  or  indicated,  towards  its  overthrow. 
It  was  directly  connected  with,  and  was  a  part  of  the  civil  polity,  in  both  instances. 
In  the  one  it  was  expressly  authorized,  and  in  the  other  distinctly  recognized,  as  a  civil 
and  domestic  arrangement,  giving  birth  to  important  social  and  moral  obligations,  and 
while  its  abuses  are  denounced,  no  attempt  was  made  to  interfere  with  it,  as  a  concern 
ot  State.  During  the  personal  ministrations  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  the 
whole  Eastern  world  was  full  of  slavery,  in  ils  worst  forms — in  forms  confessedly 
worse  than  any  in  the  United  States,  and  comprehending,  it  has  been  estimated,  one 
entire  half  of  the  population  of  the  East ;  and  yet  inspiration  is  silent,  except  in  the 
specification  and  enforcement  of  the  relative  duties  of  master  and  slave,  without  one 
word  in  condemnation  of  the  relation  out  of  which  the  duties  arise.  Must  not  St.  Paul 
and  his  associates  have  been  familiar  with  the  "Ergastula  tola"  of  Juvenal — entire 
work  houses  crowded  with  slaves,  and  dotting  nearly  every  road  side  of  Greece  and 
Rome?  Were  they  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  slavery,  even  negro  slavery,  had  existed 
in  the  countries  and  colonies  of  Greece  for  ages  before  the  Christian  era]  Were  they 
strangers  to  the  fact,  that  ihe  Roman  Empire  was  full  of  slavery?  Had  the  slave  mar- 
kets of  the  Imperial  and  Provincial  capitols,  never  attracted  their  attention?  Did  they 
not  know  that  the  mines  of  the  Empire  alone,  for  a  series  of  ages,  occupied  upon  an 
average,  annually,  some  50,000  slaves?  Were  the  facts  attested  by  Seneca,  Pliny,  Strabo, 
and  others,  that  many  Roman  citizens  owned  whole  legions  of  slaves,  unknown  to  them? 
And  yet  we  have  seen,  and  shall  further  see,  what  their  example  was,  and  how  little  it 
resembled  the  conduct  of  which  we  complain?  Every  word  on  the  subject  from  either, 
vindicates  the  idea  and  the  fact,  that  slavery  is  a  civil  relation,  with  which  Christianity 
does  not  meddle,  and  as  such  is  not  to  be  interfered  with  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 
From  Moses  to  Christ,  slavery,  perpetual  slavery  for  life,  existed  in  the  Church,  even 
in  connection  with  the  Priesthood  in  all  its  grades,  and  God,  equal  and  infinite  in  wisdom 
and  goodness,  specified,  explained,  and  enforced  its  relations.  Not  only  did  the  He- 
brews hold  slaves,  by  Divine  permission,  but  by  the  same  warrant,  they  were  permitted 
to  transmit  them  to  their  children,  as  hereditary  property.  There  is  no  prohibition  of 
slavery  during  the  Old  Testament  history,  nor  is  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  any 
where  charged  as  a  social  or  moral  wrong.  In  the  Jewish  polity,  it  is  not  merely  tole- 
rated, but  as  the  prevailing  custom  of  the  early  Eastern  nations,  which  God  did  not  see 
proper  to  deny  to  the  Jewish  nation,  it  was  retained  and  adopted  as  one  of  the  institutes 
of  a  polity,  established  and  published  by  Himself,  as  solo  legislator.  And  this  is  not 
merely  conceded,  but  currently  assumed  and  asserted,  by  the  whole  stream  both  of  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  commentary.  Nor  are  Methodist  commentators  any  exception  to  the 
rule.  It  is  admitted  and  taught  by  all  our  standard  expositors,  not  excepting  Dr. 
Coke,  who  in  his  commentary,  whatever  he  may  say  elsewhere,  admits  that  slavery  by 
Divine  warrant,  was  made  a  part  of  the  political  constitution  of  the  Jewish  Common- 
wealth. Ignorance  alone  will  deny,  that  slavery  pervaded  the  whole  Eastern  world,  at 
the  introduction  of  Christianity,  and  yet  the  legislation  of  the  New  Testament,  no  where 


63 

condems  the  relation  or  the  system,  but  is  limited  to  conservative  regulations,  designed 
to  prevent  abuse,  and  inculcate  duty,  in  relation  to  all  connected  with  the  system, 
whether  as  masters  or  slaves.  Non-resistance  to  the  law  of  servitude  as  a  civil  ar- 
rangement, submission  and  fidelity  on  the  part  of  slaves,  are  exacted  as  matter  of 
Christian  duty,  and  for  the  emphatic  reason  "that  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be 
not  blasphemed,"  as  by  those,  who  teach  the  right  of  resistance  and  non-submission,  in 
the  premise?.  The  same  duty  is  urged,  in  view  of  the  solemn  motive,  that  the  slave 
may  "adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour,"  a  part  of  the  "doctrine  of  God  our  Sa- 
viour," being,  that  as  the  master  owes  protection,  support,  and  kindness  to  the  slave, 
as  such,  so  the  slave  owes  obedience  and  all  fidelity  to  the  master,  in  his  character  of 
master.  A  still  more  explicit  reason,  assigned  in  the  New  Testament,  is,  that  such 
obedience,  so  performed  by  the  slave,  is  necessary  to  the  Divine  approval,  as  matter  of 
plain  duty,  growing  out  of  the  civil  condition  of  the  slave.  Every  critical  student  of 
the  New  Testament,  is  well  aware  that  there  is  not  in  it  a  single  sentence,  nor  any 
series  of  them,  from  which  induction  can  logically  deduce  the  inference,  that  the  sim- 
ple owning  or  holding  of  slaves,  is  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God,  or  Christian 
character.  How  is  it  then,  that  so  many  have  become  "wise  above  what  is  written," 
and  are  so  far  in  advance  of  the  revelations  of  infinite  wisdom,  on  this  subject,  as  to 
represent  slavery  under  any  circumstances,  as  one  of  those  monster  vices — a  Giant 
abomination,  which  (according  to  some,)  Christianity  has  refused  to  pollute  her  lips 
with,  and  has  left  to  be  destroyed  by  extra-scriptural  efforts,  or  if  such  be  not  the  po- 
sition, (according  to  others,)  then  let  us  have  the  warrant  from  the  word  of  God,  un- 
der which  they  presume  to  act.  Difference  of  opinion  and  feeling  on  the  subject,  we 
do  not  complain  of — this  is  to  be  expected,  but  when  it  comes  to  cursing  and  outlawry 
from  the  pale  of  all  the  virtues,  then  those  who  so  treat  us,  must  produce  Divine  war- 
rant for  what  they  do,  or  stand  exposed  to  the  charge  of  arraigning  the  wisdom  and  the 
word  of  God.  By  a  denunciation  of  slavery  as  the  sin  of  sins,  the  disciple  charges  the 
Master  with  infidelity  to  His  commission,  for  by  a  most  unaccountable  oversight,  the 
great  Teacher,  and  the  inspired  expositors  of  his  declared  will,  failed  to  intimate,  that 
it  was  a  sin  at  all.  Those  we  oppose  in  this  argument,  make  the  Christian  profession 
a  reason  for  dissolving  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  contrary  to  the  unequivocal 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  which  enjoins  the  duty  of  greater  fidelity  on  the  part 
of  the  Christian  slave,  because  the  master  is  a  Christian  too,  and  they  brethren  in  Christ, 
and  in  this  way  our  opponents  deface  rather  than  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour. 
The  New  Testament  teaches  that  this  doctrine  is  adorned,  when  the  slave  renders  a 
ready  and  cheerful  obedience,  in  view  of  his  relations  as  a  slave  ;  modern  menders  of 
the  Divine  message  teach,  that  it  is  best  done  by  disobedience,  theft,  robbery,  running 
away,  or  placing  themselves  in  a  position  to  be  stolen  by  their  benefactors.  The  New 
Testament  enjoins  obedience  upon  the  slave,  from  motives  of  honesty  and  uprightness, 
leot  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  blasphemed  ;  the  reformers  in  question,  how- 
ever, blaspheme  both  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine,  by  inculcating  directly  the  con- 
trary course  of  conduct.  The  New  Testament  requires  that  kind  of  obedience  which 
counts  "the  master  worthy  of  all  honor" — that  is,  in  the  relation  of  master.  It  directs 
the  slave  not  to  be  careful  about  his  servitude— "care  not  for  it,"  although  freedom  is 
to  be  preferred,  when  it  is  offered  by  rightful  authority.  It  also  teaches  the  slave  to 
render  service  to  his  master  "as  unto  Christ" — "riot  to  steal  but  to  show  all  good  fidel- 
ity"— and  finally,  most  solemnly  requires  all  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  "to  teach  and 
command  these  things,"  and  assures  the  Church  and  the  world,  that  those  ministers  who 
fail  or  refuse  to  do  it,  "do  not  consent  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words  of  the  Lord 


Jesus,  but  are  proud  knowing  nothing— doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words— 
whereof  cometh  envy,  evil  surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds, 
destitute  of  the  truth,  from  such  withdraw."  Here  is  a  picture  too  fearfully  attractive 
not  to  be  noticed.  A  picture  drawn  by  omnicient  discernment,  and  every  word  of  it 
originally  applied  to  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition.  We  are  not  ignorant  of  the 
extent  to  which  sneer  and  banter  have  been  appealed  tc,  to  deter  all  concerned  from  any 
thing  like  a  scriptural  examination  of  the  subject.  Those  who  resort  to  such  a  course, 
doubtless  perceive,  that  whatever  warrant  they  may  have  for  their  conduct  from  other 
sources,  they  have  none  from  the  word  of  God.  They  no  doubt  feel,  that  they  are 
teaching  Prophets  and  Apostles  instead  of  learning  from  them!  The  Church  that  claims 
authority  to  excommunicate,  or  in  any  way  punish  or  disparage  the  claims  of  a  man 
merely  because  standing  in  the  relation  of  master  or  owner  to  a  slave,  treats  the  lan- 
guage and  analogy  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  as  obsolete,  for  in  the  Scriptures  of  both 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  the  relation  is  recognized  as  existing  in  the  Church, 
every  way  and  essentially  distinct  from  that  of  hired  or  indented  service,  and  in  a  way 
further,  showing  the  relation  to  be  allowable  by  Divine  permission.  God  informed  his 
people,  under  the  old  dispensation,  that  they  might  hold  slaves  either  for  a  term  of 
years,  or  for  life,  as  a  "perpetual  possession"  and  "inheritance"  for  their  children. 
The  permission  is  expressly  given  in  various  forms.  Under  the  new  dispensation,  He 
has  not  only  failed  to  say  they  shall  not  do  so,  but  proceeding  upon  the  fact  that  they 
did,  and  the  assumption  that  they  would,  He  simply  instructs  them,  how  to  treat  their 
slaves,  and  explains  to  them  the  kind  of  service  they  may  reasonably  expect  from  them. 
The  cruel,  unjust,  and  even  unkind  master,  should  be  disowned  by  the  Church,  as  also 
the  faithless  slave.  The  humane  and  considerate_masterjjll.d.t!m  .fsitLful.sJai&Jiave  as 
good  a  right,  according  16" the  Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures,  to  membership  in  the 
Church  of  God,  other  things  being  equal,  as  any  class  of  mankind  whatever.  The 
practice  of  the  Church  for  more  than  thirty  centuries,  has  been  in  accordance  with  this 
statement.  Biblical  scholars  need  not  be  told,  that  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  terms  denoting  the  slave  proper,  by  general  consent  of  all 
commentary  and  criticism,  and  clearly  beyond  doubt  distinguishing  the  slave  from  the 
hired  or  any  other  kind  of  servant — thus  forming  two  separate  and  well  defined  states 
of  servitude,  are  used  several  hundred  times,  and  frequently  in  direct  contrast  in  the 
same  sentence,  and  that  in  both  langnages,  and  both  divisions  of  the  Bible,  they  are 
distinguished  and  kept  separate,  by  the  use  of  different  terms,  without  any  confusion 
of  meaning  or  application.  They  need  not  be  told,  that  in  the  New  Testament  as  in 
the  old,  the  one  relation  is  recognized  as  existing  in  the  Church,  as  well  as  the  other, 
and  that  there  is  no  prohibition  of  the  one  any  more  than  of  the  other.  The  distinction 
between  ruler  and  subject,  parent  and  child,  husband  and  wfe,  is  not  more  distinctly  main- 
tained by  the  use  of  different  terms,  than  that  between  the  slave  proper  and  the  hired  ser- 
vant of  theScriplures.  If  ihisbenotso,  let  the  contrary  be  shown.  Letitbe  madeappear, 
that  the  "Eved"  and  "Saukeer",  (slave  and  hired  servant,")  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures — 
the  "Doulous"  and  "Misthotos,"  (store  and  hireling)  of  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and 
the  New  Testament,  with  their  almost  innumerable  compounds  and  formations,  as  well 
as  other  kindred  terms,  with  their  compounds  and  derivatives,  used  to  denote  the  same 
contrasted  relations — let  it  be  shown,  that  all  these,  so  used  in  several  hundred  places, 
do  not  mean  the  opposite  civil  and  domestic  relations  of  slavery  and  freedom— of  compul- 
sory and  voluntary  service.  But  if  not,  and  the  Bible  is  found  teeming  with  such  evi 
dences  and  distinctions  with  regard  to  slavery,  while  the  very  Decalogue  recognizes  the 
relation,  and  it  is  re-published  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  let  it  be  admitted  that  the 


65 


evil  of  slavery  is  to  be  judged  of  in  view  of  other  tests  than  its  condemnation  in  the 
Bible.  Were  the  Bible  silent  on  the  subject,  the  case  would  be  very  different.  Other 
means  of  judgment  would,  of  necessity,  have  to  be  appealed  to.  But  the  Bible  is  not 
silent.  Heaven  has  legislated  on  the  subject,  and  beyond  that  legislation  no  man  or 
Church  can  go,  without  a  departure  from  the  word  of  God.  The  Methodists  have 
avowed  the  belief  to  Heaven  and  earth,  that  what  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible,  cannot  be 
made  a  condition  of  salvation,  and  by  consequence  cannot  be  essential  to  Christian 
character  or  ministerial  qualification.  Let  the  Bible  then,  come  in  as  a  witness  on  this 
subject,  and  let  its  decision  be  conclusive  of  the  controversy.  This  must  have  been 
the  design  of  Heaven,  or  the  subject  would  not  have  been  introduced  there.  We  may  > 
fight  and  divide,  and  fight  after  division,  until  weary  and  wasted,  and  it  must  come  to 
this  at  last.  Slavery  as  a  question  of  morality,  can  only  be  settled  ly  an  appeal  to  the 
revealed  will  of  God.  Here,  and  on  this  ground,  must  the  decisive  battle  be  fought. 
Let  this  then  be  the  issue.  The  Divine  will  being  revealed  on  the  subject,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, what  is  it?  If  we  misunderstand  the  great  register  of  our  faith,  let  us  see  our 
wrong.  If  we  lack  information,  enlighten  us.  If  by  fair  exegetical  argument,  the 
contrary  of  what  we  assume  can  be  shown,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  submit.  But  should 
it  appear  that  the  Bible  recognizes  the  jural  and  social  relation  of  master  and  slave,  as 
a  concern  of  civil  government,  with  which  the  Church  has  no  right  to  interfere,  beyond 
the  inculcation  of  duty  and  the  correction  of  abuses  incident  to  the  relation,  then  we 
are  compelled  to  maintain,  that  those  who  denounce  the  relation  itself,  as  criminal  and 
inconsistent  with  Christian  character,  "teach  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men, 
and  pervert  the  oracles  of  God."  We  repeat,  here  is  the  true  issue,  and  let  it  be  met? 
The  eariy  attempts  of  the  Church,  or  portions  of  it,  to  interfere,  so  as  to  disturb  the 
civil  and  domestic  relations  between  master  and  slave,  are  directly  condemned  by  near- 
ly all  the  principal  early  and  later  fathers.  Ignatius,  Chrysostom,  and  Jerome  especial- 
ly, denounce  the  practice  as  unchristian.  Ignatius  says,  "despise  not  the  slaves,  neither 
suffer  them  to  be  puffed  up,  but  to  the  glory  of  God  let  them  serve  with  greater  dili- 
gence, thai,  they  may  obtain  of  God  a  better  liberty.  Let  them  not  desire  that  their 
liberty  be  purchased  by  the  Church,  lest  they  fall  under  the  slavery  of  their  passions." 
And  accordingly  it  was  decreed,  by  one  of  the  ancient  councils  of  the  Church — "if  any 
teach,  that  by  virtue  of  religion  or  Christian  instruction,  that  the  slave  may  despise  his 
master,  or  may  withhold  his  service,  or  that  he  shall  not  serve  his  master  with  good 
faith  and  reverence,  let  him  be  anathema."  Such  views  of  the  subject  are  not  offered 
to  show  that  slavery  is  not  an  evil,  but  to  show  that  it  is  not,  (unless  the  relation  be 
abused  to  criminal  and  unworthy  purposes,)  evil  in  the  sense  and  to  the  extent  assum- 
ed by  a  large  portion,  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Where 
slavery  obtains,  without  being  a  civil  regulation  of  the  State,  without  the  sanction  of 
public  law,  as  was  the  case  in  Massachusetts,  from  its  introduction  until  put  down  by 
the  Judiciary,  our  reasoning  does  not,  and  is  not  intended  to  apply.  If  evil  be  applied 
to  slavery  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  applied  to  drunkenness,  profaneness,  &c.,  as  contended  by  some  of  our  General 
Conference  organs,  then  the  Church  has  deliberately  connived  at  vice  and  ungodliness, 
in  both  the  ministry  and  membership,  for  the  last  half  century  and  more,  and  must  be 
looked  upon  as  not  less  guilty  and  degraded,  than  she  would  have  been,  had  she  allow- 
ed her  ministers  and  members  to  be  drunkards,  swearers,  and  Sabbath  breakers.  If 
this  be  so,  the  Church  has  been  dishonest  and  unprincipled,  in  every  period  of  her  his- 
tory, and  those  holding  such  an  opinion,  to  be  consistent,  can  only  award  her  the  curse 
of  Heaven,  and  the  scorn  of  Christendom.  The  term  evil,  however,  in  the  Discipline, 


66 

is  used  in  no  such  sense.  Such  a  construction  would  not  only  prove  the  Methodist 
Church  unworthy  of  confidence,  but  the  great  head  of  the  Church  general,  Prophets  and 
Apostles,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  principal  fathers  and 
writers  of  the  Church,  since  the  days  of  inspiration,  would  be  equally  included  in  the 
condemnation  ;  for  we  have  seen  that  all  these  have  steadily  and  formally  recognized 
the  state  and  relations  of  slavery,  even  perpetual  hereditary  slavery,  and  hare  specifi- 
cally legislated  and  given  direction,  not  for  its  overthrow,  but  for  the  regulation  of  the 
duties  and  obligations  arising  out  of  such  state  and  relations.  Taking  the  slavery  of 
the  United  States,  and  certainly  we  have  proved  it  to  be  such,  as  a  long  established  civil 
regulation  of  jural  origin,  interwoven  with  all  the  successive  forms  of  government,  and 
the  very  structure  of  society,  unless  it  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  word 
of  God,  and  so  forbidden  to  the  Christian,  we  maintain  that  any  authoritative  inter- 
ference with  the  relation  by  the  Church,  is  a  usurpation  of  right  that  ought  to  be  resist- 
ed. We  have  seen  at  length  and  undeniably,  that  the  judgment  of  our  chief  pastors, 
the  Bishops,  as  given  at  different  times,  and  fully  sustained  by  repeated  and  formal  de- 
clarations of  the  General  Conference,  directly  rejects  the  supposition  that  the  relation 
in  itself  is  disallowed  by  the  word  of  God,  and  therefore  sinful.  All  the  Bishops  joint- 
ly, Bishop  Hedding,  Dr.  Bangs,  two  successive  General  Conferences,  and  other  author- 
ities, have  been  adduced  to  show  that  since  the  early  abolition  of  the  Methodists  in  the 
United  States,  this  has  never  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  In  matters  of  con- 
science she  has,  by  her  own  official  avowal,  no  right  to  legislate,  except  what' she  de- 
rives from  the  Bible. — See  Dr.  Emory'1  s  report  in  1828.  Whence  her  right  then  to  de- 
nounce as  morally  wrong,  a  civil  relation,  recognized  and  tolerated  in  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  Scriptures]  The  recent  General  Conference  declared  the  slavery  question  to 
be  one  of  conscience,  and  as  the  subject  is  discussed  in  the  Bible,  which  we  receive  as 
"the  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  we  ask  for  the  warrant  of  the  Ma- 
jority in  taking  the  stand  they  have  on  this  subject.  One  of  two  things  we  claim,  in 
the  abused  name  of  God  and  his  word: — either  furnish  the  warrant  we  call  for  or  treat 
us  on  this  subject  as  we  are  treated  by  the  Bible  and  its  author.  We  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  the  Bible  favors  slavery,  or  that  slavery  is  not  an  evil ;  what  we  insist  upon 
is,  that  the  Bible  treats  it  as  a  jural  arrangement  in  human  governments,  which  the 
Church  has  no  right  to  assail  or  disturb,  beyond  proper  efforts  to  bring  master  and 
slave  into  the  fold  of  Christ,  and  urge  upon  both  the  faithful  performance  of  their  rela. 
live  duties,  that  in  this  way,  principle  and  conviction  may  operate  their  appropriate  re- 
sults. This  was  God's  ancient  method  in  the  Patriarchal  and  Jewish  ages,  and  that  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  under  the  new  dispensation,  and  we  insist  it  will  be  found  to 
be  the  only  efficient  means  for  the  extirpation  of  the  evil.  Beyond  this  the  Bible  is 
neither  for  nor  against  slavery.  There  is  no  pro-slavery — no  anti-slavery  in  it.  The 
relation  is  recognized  and  its  duties  clearly  pointed  out,  and  at  the  same  time  all  abuse 
of  the  relation  is  denounced  as  sin  and  punished  accordingly.  Whatever  the  zeal  and 
fanaticism  of  modern  enlightenment  may  decree  or  say,  no  other  method  of  treatment 
is  found  in  the  Bible  or  authorized  by  its  ethics.  Having  in  various  forms  brought  the 
subject  to  the  notice  of  the  Church,  as  requiring  his  interposition,  why  is  God  not  per- 
mitted to  express  his  own  will,  and  explain  his  own  law  and  purposes?  Sacredly  pledg- 
ed to  abide  by  these,  as  found  in  the  Scriptures,  have  or  have  not  the  high  engagements 
of  the  Church  been  broken  in  connection  with  the  facts  brought  to  notice  in  this  Re- 
view1? How  the  legislation  of  the  Church  has  been  treated,  we  have  seen  in  exlenso. 
Can  further  proof  be  needed  to  show  that  civil  law  has  been  declared,  in  effect,  null  and 
void,  in  its  assertion  of  the  rights  of  citizenship?  In  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  for 


67 

example,  his  personal  rights  as  a  citizen  of  Georgia,  are  legislated  away  by  the  sum- 
mary process  of  resolution.  With  no  law  of  the  Church  to  authorize  it,  as  themselves 
admit,  the  Majority  place  the  character  and  conscience  of  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  keep- 
ing of  a  party  jurisdiction,  extra-territorial  with  regard  to  the  entire  South  ;  and  this 
too,  although  every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  as  we  have  seen,  is  as  much  bound  to 
protect  the  right  in  question,  as  any  other  guarantied  by  the  constitution.  Indeed,  or- 
ganized as  the  States  are,  under  the  federal  compact,  the  whole  anti-slavery  movement 
is  an  aggressive  interference  with  the  civil  arrangements  of  the  country.  It  is  a  poli- 
tical trespass,  and  so  far  as  the  Church  is  involved,  it  is  such  ostensibly  for  religious 
purposes,  and  must  come  under  the  condemnation  of  the  late  Ohio  Conference,  in  its 
denunciation  of  "politico-religious"  movements  of  whatever  kind,  for  certainly  the  one 
before  us  is  of  this  character,  with  all  the  vengeance  of  ample  proof  and  illustration. 

The  Protest  assumes,  that  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
been  violated  in  the  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  and  it  will  at  least  be  necessa- 
ry to  show  what  was  meant  by  the  assumption.  We  reject,  and  always  have,  as  absurd 
and  utterly  untenable,  the  position,  that  the  "restrictive  articles"  are  the  constitution 
of  the  Church,  in  any  allowable  sense.  The  very  proposition  appended  to  the  articles, 
is  sufficient  without  any  thing  else,  to  overthrow  the  pretension.  Very  little  discern- 
ment is  necessary,  to  see  at  once,  that  no  government  is  established  by  these  articles  ; 
they  do  not  pretend  to  establish  one,  and  of  course,  of  necessity,  cannot  be  a  consti- 
tution, for  all  admit  that  a  constitution  is  that  which  establishes  and  constitutes  a  gov- 
ernment. That  is  intended,  and  those  things  especially  included,  without  which  the 
government  could  not  exist,  and  every  one  perceives  that  such  views  do  not  and  cannot 
apply  to  the  restrictive  articles.  These  articles  do  not  create,  nor  do  they  constitute  the 
government,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  constitution.  They  do  not,  nor  can  they  be 
made,  even  constructively,  to  include  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  government. 
There  are  other  principles  of  government  not  found  in  them,  and  to  which  they  do  not 
allude,  equally  elementary,  equally  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  government. 
A  constitution,  further,  means  the  form  in  which  the  governing  power  is  exercised. 
Such  form,  however,  is  not  found  in  the  restrictions,  except  in  part,  and  as  all  know,  to 
a  very  limited  extent.  The  restrictive  articles  are  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  a  small  part  only.  They  were  not  originally  inten- 
ded or  thought  of  as  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  although  undoubtedly  designed  to 
be  of  constitutional  force,  and  such  force  we  distinctly  claim  for  them.  They  are  prop- 
erly an  amendment  or  addition  to  the  constitution,  adopted  and  engrafted  upon  it,  long 
after  the  Church  had  a  constitution  as  truly  and  properly  as  now.  While,  therefore, 
the  restrictive  articles  are  a  part  of  the  constitution,  they  are  not  the  constitution  proper, 
any  more  than  any  other  important  section  of  the  Discipline.  As  technically  under- 
stood and  applied,  in  the  political  jurisprudence  of  the  United  States,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  without  a  constitution.  We  have  a  constitution,  however,  as  cer- 
tainly as  the  United  Stales  have,  resembling,  it  is  true,  the  English  constitution  in 
its  origin  and  structure,  much  more  than  that  of  our  own  country,  consisting  mainly, 
as  does  the  British  constitution,  of  declaratory  acts,  statutes,  rules,  and  regulations, 
together  with  construction,  precedent,  and  usage,  as  the  means  of  compact,  union,  and 
action,  and  thus  forming  a  body  of  law,  which  is  in  fact  our  only  constitution.  In  a 
word,  our  only  constitution  is  our  book  of  statutes,  rules,  and  regulations — the  Discip- 
line of  the  Church.  All  these,  essential  either  to  the  existence  of  the  government  or 
to  secure  the  ends  of  its  institution,  are  of  constitutional  force  and  validity,  and  by 
consequence  parts  of  the  constitution.  The  Itinerancy  is  confessedly  more  essential  to 


- 


68 

the  existence  and  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  than  any  other  prin- 
ciple or  arrangement  belonging  to  it,  and  yet  the  restrictive  articles  do  not  allude  to  it, 
except  as  it  regards  Bishops  alone.  The  forms  of  ordination,  as  it  relates  to  three  or- 
ders or  grades  of  the  ministry,  originally  received  from  Wesley,  as  not  only  valid  and 
sufficient,  but  always  regarded  as  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  ministry,  and 
of  course  the  Church,  must  be  considered  as  a  constitutional  arrangement,  and  an  un- 
doubted part  of  the  constitution  ;  yet  these  are  not  secured  in  the  restrictions,  except  by 
implication  perhaps,  in  the  case  of  Bishops.  Class  meetings  too,  although  not  of  Divine 
obligation,  connect  with  a  vitally  constitutional  principle  in  the  government,  as  with 
these  originates  the  ministry,  and  without  them,  with  our  present  form  of  government, 
we  could  have  no  ministry  of  any  kind.  The  class  meeting  system,  therefore,  is  a  con- 
stitutional arrangement,  beyond  doubt,  although  not  covered  by  the  restrictive  rules. 
The  Annual  Conference  system,  without  which  the  whole  machinery  of  Methodism, 
would  become  extinct,  will  always  be  looked  upon  as  a  fundamental  element  of  the  very 
structure  of  our  government,  and  yet  it  is  not  protected  by  the  restrictive  articles.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  system,  apart  from  which  our  whole  executive 
administration  would  be  something  entirely  different  from  what  it  is,  and  it  can,  there- 
fore, be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  as  a  part  of  the  constitution,  and  yet  the  restric- 
tions imposed  upon  the  delegated  General  Conference,  have  no  reference  to  this  any 
more  than  to  the  other  great  constitutional  arrangements  to  which  we  have  called  atten- 
tion. The  General  Conference  also  comes  in  with  its  powers  and  limitations,  as  a 
constitutional  arrangement,  but  the  restrictions  upon  it  are  no  more  the  constitution, 
than  any  one  of  the  constitutional  powers  or  arrangements  we  have  enumerated  in  the 
general  system. 

The  General  Conference  was  created  and  established  by  the  Annual  Conferences, 
(with  the  consent  and  approval  of  the  Episcopacy,)  as  the  organ  of  their  action,  joint- 
ly and  in  common.  Not  transcending  the  limits  of  its  powers,  its  action  is,  of  course, 
constitutional  and  binding;  but  exceeding  these  limits,  its  action  is  at  once  unconsti- 
tutional, not  binding,  and  ought  to  be  resisted.  Attempting  the  exercise  of  power 
not  delegated,  it  ceases  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  is  from  under  the 
protection  of  the  constitution,  and  loses  all  right  of  control.  All  the  powers  of  the 
General  Conference  originated,  pre-existed,  and  were  exercised  before  the  existence  of 
the  General  Conference,  and  are,  in  no  primary  sense,  traceable  to  it.  Episcopacy 
too,  with  all  its  present  powers,  had  long  existed  and  operated  its  functions,  as  now, 
before  General  Conferences  were  thought  of.  The  Episcopacy  is  not  of  General 
Conference  origin,  in  any  sense.  All  the  General  Conferences,  from  1792  to  1844, 
could  not  have  given  it  the  character  claimed  for  it,  by  our  principal  writers  on  the 
subject.  It  had  full  and  effective  existence,  and  constitutional  force  and  validity,  be- 
fore the  General  Conference,  which  now  assumes  to  have  created  it,  had  any  existence 
at  all.  It  preceded  even  the  Eldership.  It  was  the  Episcopacy  and  Eldership  in  con- 
junction, as  a  constituent  body,  that  created  the  General  Conference,  and  imposed  up- 
on it  the  restrictive  rules,  now  forming  a  part,  and  but  a  very  small  part,  of  the  consti- 
tution. These  are,  in  no  sense,  self-imposed  restrictions,  as  absurdly  supposed  by 
some.  They  were  imposed  by  those  giving  birth  and  power  to  the  delegated  General 
Conference,  and  without  whose  authority  it  could  not  have  been.  The  Episcopal  office 
was  created,  and  Dr.  Coke  officially  placed  in  its  incumbency,  by  the  only  authority 
having  any  right  to  act,  before  any  Church  existed  in  the  United  States.  In  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  the  Bishop  was  the  first  grade  of  the  ministry  adopted.  There 
was  no  Elder — no  Deacon.  The  Laity  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  They  had  merely, 


69 

through  their  Lay  Preachers,  petitioned  Mr.  Wesley  for  Elders  and  Deacons.  The 
Episcopacy  was  the  first  formative  element  or  principle  in  the  organization  of  the 
Church.  It  was  the  primal  arrangement,  around  which  all  others  clustered  and  settled 
into  order  and  symmetry.  It  was  by  an  authority  antecedent  and  superior  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  that  the  Bishop  was  created  President,  and  head  of  that  body,  which  he 
could  not  be  without  belonging  to  it.  His  right  of  Headship  and  Presidency  is  not  de- 
rived from  the  General  Conference  in  any  way.  He  is  not  indebted  to  the  General  Con- 
ference for  his  position  there.  His  being  there  is  not  by  concession  of  that  body.  As 
the  general  rule,  his  Presidency  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  existence  of  the  body. 
He  is  there  by  appointment  of  the  constitution,  to  preside  and  oversee.  Even  when 
there,  as  President,  he  is  not  the  officer  of  the  Conference  in  the  sense  contended  for. 
It  is  not  for  them  to  elect  whether  he  shall  be  there  or  not.  He  is  the  officer  of  the 
constitution — the  Church,  and  without  an  abuse  of  right — of  privilege;  the  General 
Conference  cannot  even  object,  constitutionally,  much  less  remove  him,  and  then  only 
by  regular  adjudication,  for  improper  conduct,  by  an  appeal  to  law  and  evidence.  The 
right  of  trial  by  committee,  and  of  appeal,  under  circumstances  affording  full  and  fair 
opportunity  of  defence,  is  another  constitutional  principle  of  Methodist  polity,  existing 
prior  to,  and  independently  of,  the  General  Conference,  and  applies  to  all  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  a  Bishop,  (if  he  be  a  minister,) 
not  less  than  others.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  discipline  opposed  to  this.  The  an- 
swer to  question  4,  section  4,  is  simply  declaratory  of  the  amenability  of  the  Bishop 
to  the  General  Conference,  and  the  right  of  the  Conference  to  try  and  determine  in  the 
case ;  but  the  mode  of  trial  is  determined  by  the  constitution,  to  be  by  committee,  and  as 
the  case  comes  of  course  before  the  General  Conference,  it  is  virtually  an  appeal.  The 
real  difficulty  is  defective  legislation  ;  no  statute  exists  to  carry  out  the  provision  of  the 
constitution,  which  expressly  declares  that  no  minister  shall  be  deprived  of  trial  by 
committee.  When  a  Bishop  is  charged  or  arraigned  at  a  General  Conference,  not  to 
violate  the  constitution,  he  should  be  tried  by  a  committee  of  his  peers,  and  then  let  the 
Conference  decide.  I  know  no  statute  requires  this,  and  it  is  equally  true  that  none 
forbids  it;  and  as  it  is  explicitly  exacted  by  the  constitution,  trial,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  a  committee,  is  a  violation  of  that  instrument,  and  would  be  equally  uncon- 
stitutional, were  it  authorized  by  statute,  for,  in  either  case,  it  is  doing  what  the  con- 
stitution says  the  General  Conference  shall  have  no  power  to  do,  in  the  case  of  any 
minister,  preacher,  or  member. 

The  tenure  by  which  the  Bishop  holds  office,  before  and  since  the  adoption  of  the  re- 
strictive rules,  is  distinctly,  in  the  articles  themselves,  recognized  as  of  constitutional 
force;  and  any  course  of  legislation  or  judical  action,  any  declaratory  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  in  any  way  tending  to  unsettle  such  tenure,  placing  it,  for  example, 
under  the  control  of  a  mere  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  instead  of  the  consti- 
tution, and  thus  depriving  the  Executive  Department  of  its  intended  vigor  and  stabil- 
ity, is  in  violation  of  a  plain  constitutional  provision  of  the  Discipline. 

The  Articles  of  Religion  are,  also,  an  important  and  prominent  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion. The  5th  of  these  teaches,  that  what  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible,  is  not  essential  to 
Christianity,  in  theory  or  practice  ;  any  conduct,  therefore,  not  required  or  forbidden  in 
the  word  of  God,  unless  it  be  so  required  or  forbidden  by  some  other  part  of  the  con- 
ventional compact,  existing  as  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  cannot  be  made  the  con- 
dition of  eligibility,  either  as  it  regards  membership  or  office,  on  the  part  of  the  laity 
or  ministry,  without  the  violation,  alledged  in  the  preceding  cases.  No  such  require- 
ment or  prohibition  can  be  shown  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  hence  the  infer- 


70 

ence  of  the  Protest,  as  to  the  unconstitutionally  of  the  proceedings  against  him.  The 
23d  article,  as  explained  by  the  General  Conference,  expressly  enforces  subjection  and 
deference — peaceable  submission  to  all  civil  authority;  requires  the  use  of  all  laudable 
means  to  secure  obedience  to  "the  powers  that,  be,"  and  requires  all  to  conduct  as  quiet 
and  orderly  citizens  and  subjects.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  Nation- 
al Legislature,  and  the  highest  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country,  have  decided  that 
slavery  is  a  civil  relation,  created  bylaw,  and  subject  only,  under  federal  protection,  to 
the  control  of  the  States  in  which  it  exists.  The  same  authority  deprives,  (with  his 
own  consent,  in  the  federal  compact,)  every  citizen  of  the  United  Scales  of  any  right 
to  interfere  with  this  relation.  Beside,  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  the  Legislature  alone 
has  power  to  free  a  slave,  and  for  a  long  term  of  years,  has  uniformly  refused  to  do  so, 
on  any  account.  The  General  Conference  require  Bishop  Andrew  to  do  what  they 
know  could  only  be  done  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State;  and  declare  him  unfit  for  a 
Christian  Bishop,  for  sustaining  a  civil  relation  created  by  law,  without  any  agency  of 
his,  and  which  he  cannot  dissolve,  if  he  would.  Such  conduct,  the  Protest  assumes,  is 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  duties  of  citizenship,  pledged  in  the  article  in  question,  and 
is  directly  calculated,  if  not  intended,  to  generate  and  cherish  contempt  and  disaffection 
for  the  national  constitution,  as  well  as  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  nearly  one  half 
tie  States  of  the  confederacy;  and  thus,  by  how  far  it  may  prevail,  preparing  the  way 
for  the  disunion  of  the  States  and  the  overthrow  of  the  government.  The  21st  article 
says,  "it  is  lawful  for  a  minister,  as  for  all  other  Christians,  to  marry  at  their  own  dis- 
cretion, as  they  shall  judge  the  same  to  serve  best  to  godliness."  Being  the  owner  of 
slaves  already,  by  the  avoidless  operation  of  law,  for  marrying  a  lady  possessed  of 
slaves,  an  act  allowed  as  above,  and  not  elsewhere  prohibited,  by  any  law  of  Heaven 
or  earth,  Bishop  Andrew  is  directed  to  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  func- 
tions. Was  not  this  requirement  in  violation  of  a  right  secured  to  Bishop  Andrew  by 
the  constitution  of  the  Church?  The  "general  rule"  on  slavery  is  admitted,  on  all 
hands,  to  be  a  part  of  the  constitution  since  1808.  The  intention  of  the  rule  was  to 
declare  the  disapproval  and  opposition  of  the  church  to  the  slave  trade,  and  the  system 
of  slavery  as  consequent  upon  it.  This  rule,  by  the  4th  restrictive  article,  cannot  be 
revoked  or  changed  by  the  General  Conference.  It  is  not  only  not  competent  for  the 
Conference  to  revoke,  but  they  cannot  alter  it  so  as  to  change  its  character,  or  make  it 
different  in  its  bearings  and  application.  Any  statutory  regulations,  therefore,  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  must,  by  constitutional  restraint,  be  merely  expository  of  the  pur- 
pose and  intention  of  the  general  rule;  for,  going  beyond  this,  would  be  to  change  it, 
and  would,  of  course,  infringe  the  constitution.  Any  legislation  contrary  to  the  rule, 
would  be  in  effect  to  revoke  it.  Any  coming  short  or  transcending  it,  in  range  and  ap- 
plication, would  be,  actually,  in  every  practical  sense,  to  change  it.  All  the  legislation 
we  have  had  then,  since  1789,  and  especially  since  1808,  when  the  restriction  was  im- 
posed on  the  General  Conference,  can  only  be  considered  as  a  statutory  exposition  of 
this  rule;  and  every  deviation  from  it,  if  an}7,  has  been  an  unconstitutional  meddling 
with  the  subject.  The  rule,  too,  is  a  "general"  one,  that  is,  applies  to  all — to  Bish- 
ops even,  as  all  will  admit.  Indeed,  no  incredulity  can  doubt,  no  ingenuity  evade  the 
conclusion.  If,  then,  the  general  rule  apply  to  Bishops,  how  does  it  happen  that  the 
statutory  exposition  of  it  makes  an  exception  of  them!  The  very  supposition  exposes 
its  own  absurdity.  And  it  follows,  hence,  that  the  whole  law  of  slavery  must  apply  to 
Bishops  as  to  other  grades  of  the  ministry.  This  is  the  position  of  the  Protest.  Here 
then  is  the  law,  and  let  Bishop  Andrew  be  tried'by  it.  If  it  appear  that  he  has  bought, 
sold,  or  enslaved,  man,  woman,  or  child,  let  him  be  punished.  If  he  be  a  slave  holder, 


71 

as  a  citizen  of  Georgia,  and  the  laws  of  the  State  admit  of  emancipation,  find  allow 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  he  is  liable  to  arrest,  and  let  the  punishment  fol- 
low. But  should  the  facts  negative  both  suppositions,  as  is  elsewhere  demonstrated, 
then  thelaiv  gives  no  right  to  touch  him,  and  to  do  so,  is  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 
I  maintain,  therefore,  that  it  follows,  irresistibly,'  that  the  proceedings  of  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference,  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  were  a  direct  and  gross  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  minority  had  a  right  to  declare  them 
null  and  void.  Oh  the  subject  of  such  right,  under  the  circumstances  in  proof,  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  says,  "a  legislative  act,  contrary  to  the  constitution,  is  not  a  laic.  An 
act  of  the  Legislature  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  is  void."  He  adds,  "this  theory 
is  essentially  attached  to  written  constitutions,  and  is  to  be  considered  as  one  of  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  society;"  and  its  application  to  judicial  and  executive  acts,  must 
be  equally  apparent. 

Bishop  Andrew  become  the  owner  of  slaves  by  compulsion  of  law,  without  any  will 
or  consent  of  his  own,  entirely  apart  from  his  marriage.  That  I  might  not  be  in  error 
on  this  subject,  I  applied,  through  a  friend,  to  two  distinguished  Jurists  of  Georgia, 
for  the  law  of  the  State — the  whole  law  relating  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  and 
subjoin  their  reply: — 

"  Lows  of  Georgia  in  reference  to  the  manumission  of  Slaves. — 1801 :  Section  1. — 
From  and  after  the  passing  of  this  act,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons 
to  manumit,  or  set  free,  any  negro  slave  or  slaves,  any  mulatto  or  mustigo,  or  any  oth- 
er person  or  persons  of  color,  who  may  be  deemed  slaves  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of 
this  act,  in  any  other  manner  or  form,  than  by  an  application  to  the  Legislature  for  that 
purpose."  1818:  Section  4. — "All  and  every  will,  testament,  deed,  whether  by  way  of 
trust,  or  otherwise,  contract,  agreement,  or  stipulation,  or  other  instrument,  in  writing, 
or  by  parol,  made  and  executed  for  the  purpose  of  effecting,  or  endeavoring  to  effect, 
the  manumission  of  any  slave  or  slaves,  either  directly,  by  conferring,  or  attempting  to 
confer  freedom  on  such  slave  or  slaves,  or  indirectly  or  virtually,  by  allowing  and  se- 
curing, or  attempting  to  allow  and  secure,  to  such  slave  or  slaves,  the  right  or  privi- 
lege of  working  for  his  or  her  benefit,  or  themselves  free  from  the  control  of  the  mas- 
ter or  owner  of  such  slave  or  slaves,  or  of  enjoying  the  profit  of  his,  her  or  their  labor 
or  skill,  shall  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  declared  to  be  null  and  void."  The  laiv  then 
proceeds  to  declare  that  any  person  attempting  to  manumit,  or  being  in  any  way  con- 
cerned in  the  attempt,  shall  be  subject  to  a  penalty  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars  ; 
and  the  slaves  attempted  to  be  made  free,  shall  be  sold  at  public  outcry. 

"GEORGIA,  Richmond  county. — We,  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  Augusta  Bar, 
hereby  certify  that  the  aforegoing  are  true  extracts  from  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature,  now 
in  force,  relative  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves.  The  general  policy  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Georgia,  relative  to  passing  acts  of  emancipation,  on  application  of  particular 
individuals,  is  decidedly  against  it.  We  have  known  many  instances  in  which  it  was 
refused,  and  but  two  in  which  it  was  granted,  under  very  peculiar  circumstances.  We 
have  never  known  an  instance  in  which  legislative  emancipation  was  granted  to  a  man's 
slaves  generally.  We  have  also  known  applications  refused  tinder  very  stron^  appeals. 

WM.  W.  HOLT,° 
CHARLES  J.  JENKINS. 

29th  JULY,  1844." 

This  will,  perhaps,  place  at  rest  the  suspicion  attempted  to  be  excited  by  the  Reply, 
and  some  of  the  Northern  Church  Papers,  that  the  laws  of  Georgia  did  not  render 
emancipation  as  impracticable  as  was  assumed  by  the  friends  of  Bishop  Andrew.  The 
law  of  Maryland,  as  explained  and  attested  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Merrick,  of  the  United 


72 

States  Senate,  and  Judge  Key,  placed  it  equally  out  of  the  power  of  Mr.  Harding,  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  to  manumit  the  slaves  of  his  wife,  and  yet,  the  majority  of 
the  General  Conference  required  both  Bishop  Andrew  and  Mr.  Harding  to  do  what  the 
municipal  laws  of  Georgia  and  Maryland  forbid ;  that  is,  the  Church  required  these 
men  to  perform  unlawful  acts — required  them  to  commit  the  sin  and  brave  the  penal- 
ties of  a  civil  trespass  to  secure  the  favor  of  the  Church,  and  actually  punished  both  for 
not  doing  it.  If  emancipation  be  practicable  in  Maryland,  in  the  sense  of  the  Discip- 
line, that  is,  legally,  and  at  the  same  time  permitting  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  free- 
dom in  the  State,  why  did  the  Representative  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  ap- 
peal case  of  Harding,  avow,  in  behalf  of  the  Conference,  that  they  did  not  intend  to  be 
governed  by  the  laws  of  Maryland  on  the  subject  of  slavery]  And  why  was  it  avowed, 
by  another  member  of  the  Baltimore  Delegation,  that  the  law  could  be  violated  with 
impunity,  and  that,  therefore,  it  ought  to  be  resisted?  Why,  too,  was  it  so  much  in- 
sisted upon,  that  Harding  might  have  freed  his  wife's  slaves  by  removal  from  the 
State]  These  facts  would  not  be  noticed,  but  for  the  much  more  important  one,  that 
the  doctrine  and  conduct  in  question  were  endorsed  by  the  majority  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  ecclesiastical  law  thus  brought,  as  charged  in  the  Protest,  in  direct  con- 
flict with  the  laws  of  the  land.  Ecclesiastical  was  claimed  to  be  above,  to  supersede, 
and  virtually  abrogate  civil  law  ;  and  it  is  but  too  true,  that  language  to  this  effect  has, 
to  a  fearful  extent,  become  the  vulgar  tongue  of  a  large  portion  of  Northern  Metho- 
dism on  the  subject  of  Slavery.  The  position  was  avowed,  and  gloried  in,  that  no 
slave-owning  citizen  of  Georgia,  or  any  other  State  whose  laws  are  similar,  can  be  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  without  an  act  constituiing  a  penal  offence 
against  the  laws  of  the  State  to  which  he  owes  allegiance.  He  is  required  to  violate 
or  evade  civil  law,  as  the  only  condition  upon  which  he  can  be  permitted  to  exercise 
the  functions  of  a  Bishop.  The  office  is  declared  to  be  incompatible  with  the  obliga- 
tions of  citizenship  in  some  twelve  of  the  Southern  States.  He  is  disfranchised,  be- 
cause, as  a  citizen,  he  cannot  do  what  the  Church  requires.  In  other  words,  the  Church 
assumes  to  have  an  officer  who  shall  be  exempt  from  the  operation  of  the  law  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives,  or  else,  no  citizen  of  that  State  is  eligible  to  the  office.  Can 
the  South  be  expected  to  submit  to  this] 

It  may  be  necessary  to  notice,  briefly,  the  denial  of  the  Manifesto,  that  the  law  of 
slavery  applies  to  Bishops.  The  majority  think  the  law  cannot  apply  to  Bishops,  be- 
cause the  mode  of  trial  is  not  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  other  Traveling  Preachers. 
The  same  reasoning  would  exempt  another  class  in  like  manner,  as  the  mode  of  trial 
is  not  the  same  in  the  cases  of  Traveling  and  Local  Preachers  ;  therefore  the  law  of 
slavery  cannot  apply  to  I/ocal  Preachers,  as  they  are  not  named  any  more  than  Bish- 
ops. With  regard  to  the  trifling  salary  regulation  of  1836,  unless  the  General  Con- 
ference regarded  Bishops  as  Traveling  Preachers  proper,  they  violated  the  plain  letter 
of  the  constitution,  in  allowing  them  any  salary  at  all.  According  to  Doctors  Durbin, 
Peck  and  Elliott,  every  dollar  appropriated  to  the  Bishops,  since  1808,  is  an  open  abuse 
of  a  plain  constitutional  trust,  respecting  the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern  and  Char- 
tered Fund  ;  such  allowance,  as  all  know,  being  restricted  to  Traveling  Preachers  only. 
But  further,  the  customary  phrase  in  the  Discipline,  "Traveling  Preachers,"  is,  every 
where  and  uniformly  used,  to  distinguish  the  itinerant  from  the  local  ministry,  and  for 
no  other  purpose.  Bishops  must  belong  to  one  or  the  other,  and  if  to  the  itinerant 
class,  as  they  are  no  where  excepted,  the  law  of  slavery  must  apply  to  them ;  and  if 
not,  as  slave  holding  in  the  ministry  is  regulated  by  law,  then  slavery  in  the  Episcopa- 
cy cannot  be  considered  as  a  trespass  of  any  kind,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Protest  is 


73 


fully  sustained  by  one  of  the  principal  postulates  of  the  Reply.     Unless  Bishops  are 
included  under  the  phrase  "Traveling  Preachers,"  they  are  excluded  from  our  pulpits, 
so  far  as  right  is  concerned,  by  the  very  terms  of  our  Deed  of  Settlement.     It  is  reck- 
lessly affirmed  in  the   Reply,  that  in  the  Discipline,   "special  provision  is  made  in  the 
case  of  Local   and  Traveling  Preachers."     This  statement  is  utterly  unfounded  :  not 
only  are  Local  Preachers  not  named  in  the  section  on  slavery,  but  they  are  not  alluded 
to  at  all,  except  by  a  construction  which  must  inevitably  include  Bishops.     If  the  phrase 
"official  station,"  be  construed,  as  it  certainly  should,  to  include  them,  when  they  as- 
pire to  ordination,  &c.,  so,    also,  does  it,  of  necessity,  include  Bishops.     If  Bishops 
hold  "official  stations,"  the  law  of  slavery  must  apply  to  them.     The  Reply  makes  the 
discovery,  that  the  section  on  slavery  applies  only  to  officers  of  the  Church.     Turn  now 
to  a  Bishop  : — Is  he  an  officer  of  the  Church,  holding  "official  station?"  and  if  so,  as  all 
must  see  at  once,  the  law  of  slavery  must  apply  to  him,  and  he  be  protected  by  it,  so  far 
as  it  may  be  intended  to  afford  protection  in  any  instance.     This  single  admission  sets 
aside  the  denial  of  the  Reply  as  absurd  and  self-contradictory.     But  again,  in  view  of 
the  "special  provision"  of  the  Reply  for  Local  Preachers,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  cov- 
ers equally   the  case  of  Bishops,  with  what  show  of  fairness  can  the  Repliers  deny,  as 
thev  do,  the  assumption  of  the  Protest,  that  we  have  express  law,  covering  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew]     What  is  the  difference  between  "express  law"  and  "special  provis- 
ion!"    The  Reply  explicitly  admits,  what  elsewhere  it  most  laboriously  denies,  that  the 
law  of  slavery  does  apply  to  Bishops.     It  urges,  for  example,  that  Bishop  Andrew,  by 
a  deed  of  trust,  placed  it  out  of  his  power  to  do  what,  by  a  change  of  the  law  of  Georgia, 
the  Discipline  would  'imperatively' demand,  and  a  'standing  Jaw'  of  the  Church  require! 
Now,  unless  this  be  regarded  as  a  full  and  unequivocal  admission,  that  the  law  of  slave- 
ry applies  to  Bishops,  and  covers  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  not  only  is  the  reasoning 
absurd,  but  the  whole  passage  devoid  of  sense ;  and  we  thus  demonstrate  that  the  ad- 
verse position  of  the  Reply,  overthrown  by  these  fatal  concessions,  must  have  been  re- 
sorted to  to  meet  an  emergency.     If  the  Bishops  are  excluded  from  subjection  to  the  law 
of  slavery,  because  not  named,  then  are  they  equally  excluded  in  the  instance  of  many 
of  the  most  important  laws  of  the  Church,  as  in  many  of  its  most  cardinal  regulations 
they  are  not   named  at  all.     In  one  of  their  official  addresses,  the  Bishops  speak  of 
themselves  and  their  work  as  constituting  a  "department  of  the  traveling  ministry." 
The  majority  labored   long  and  hard,    at  the  last  General  Conference,  to  show   that 
slavery  is  a  moral  question — a  question  of  conscience.     Dr.  Emory,  in  his  celebrated 
report  in  1828,  says,  that  all  the  moral  laics  of  Methodism  apply  to  Bishops  as  truly  as 
to  any  other  portion  of  the  Church  ;  and  yet  we  are  told  the  law  of  slavery   does  not 
include  them.     They  maintained  a  Bishop  is  not  a  Traveling  Preacher  in  the  sense  of 
the  Discipline,  and  yet,  if  even  deposed  as  a  Bishop,  he  would  still  be  a  Traveling  El- 
der in  good  standing!     Not  belonging   to  any  Conference  in  the  United  States  or  else- 
where, where  would  be  his  place,  and  what  his  rights,  as  a  Traveling  Preacher?     What 
Conference  could  have  claimed  him?     What  Bishop  would  have  dared  to  give  him  an 
appointment?     Or,  acting  upon  Bishop  Hamline's  suggestion,  would  the  General  Con- 
ference have  been  so  obliging  as  to  exercise  the  rights  of  an  Annual  Conference,  and 
the  appointing  power  of  the  Episcopacy,  in  addition,  and  so  taken  care  that  he  had  both 
place  and  work  as  a  Traveling  Preacher?     This  whole  attempt  to  deprive  Bishops   of 
the  protection,  and  yet  subject  them  to  the  restraints  of  the  law  of  slavery,  must  strike 
all  as  extraordinary,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  and  we  are  compelled  to  think,  that  but  for 
the  good  fortune  of  such  folly,  (as  it  seems  to  us,)  in  having  able  supporters,  its  suc- 
cess would  be  slender  indeed.     In  the  General  Conference's  plan  of  division,  adopted 

10 


74 

only  two  days  before  the  date  of  the  Reply,  it  is  said,  •'Ministers,  local  and  traveling, 
of  every  grade  and  office,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may,"  &c.  And  this 
form  of  expression  all  admit  was  intended  to  include  Bisbops,  not  less  than  other  min- 
isters ;  and  proofs  to  the  same  effect  might  be  multiplied  to  almost  any  extent,  but  it 
cannot  be  necessary. 

We  are  often  reminded  that  the  middle  or  umpire  Conferences  will  protect  the  South. 
We  have  grave  reasons  for  believing  that  these  Conferences,  unless  utterly  misrepre- 
sented in  the  last  General  Conference,  are  in  alliance  with  abolitionism,  so  far  as  may 
be  necessary  to  carry  out  tho  purposes  indicated  by  the  action  of  that  body  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  On  every  question  before  that  body,  involving  Southern  interest,  they 
went  almost  en  masse  with  the  abolitionists.  They  supported  the  abolition  measure  to 
rescind  the  law  prohibiting  colored  testimony  against  white  persons,  where  it  was  not 
allowed  in  civil  proceedings,  and  thus  placed  ecclesiastical,  in  conflict  with  civil  right, 
in  all  the  slave  holding  States.  The  middle,  or  anti-slavery  party,  went  with  the  abo- 
litionists in  Harding's  case.  They  were  side  by  side  and  shoulder  to  shoulder  against 
Bishop  Andrew.  They  acted  together  in  the  election  of  one  of  the  new  Bishops. 
They  were  one  in  resisting  the  proposition  of  the  Bishops,  and  the  whole  South,  to  ap- 
peal the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  to  the  Annual  Conferences  and  the  Church.  They  ac- 
ted with  the  abolitionists  in  the  avowal  of  a  principle  unknown  to  law,  and  disavowed 
by  a  preceding  General  Conference,  as  we  have  proved,  that  connection  with  slavery,  even 
under  circumstances  expressly  excepted  by  the  law,  disqualifies  a  minister  for  the  Epis- 
copal office.  They  did  all  this  and  more.  And,  connected  with  the  last  item,  they  failed 
either  to  say,  or  let  it  be  understood,  that  an  abolitionist  could  not  be  elected  Bishop.  And 
yet  we  are  called  upon  to  confide  our  interests  to  the  care  of  these  Conferences.  If  they  did 
not  intend  a  coalition  with  the  abolitionists,  why  did  they  not  express  disapproval  of  the 
almost  innumerable  abolition  petitions,  demanding  that  all  slave  holders  be  separated 
from  the  Church?  Why  was  it  the  South  could  get  no  report  upon  these  petitions — 
for  or  against  the  objects  prayed  for?  The  reply  avows  that  these  petitions  were  a 
reason  of  action  against  Bishop  Andrew.  Why  not  reported  on  then,  and  new  legisla- 
tion had?  Do  the  majority  intend  to  proclaim  the  fact,  that  they  were  governed  by  pe- 
titions and  party  interests,  rather  than  law?  Beside,  why  be  governed  by  a  few  peti- 
tions, as  to  slavery  in  the  Episcopacy,  and  pay  no  attention  to  the  many,  praying  that 
slavery  be  separated  from  the  Church  in  all  its  parts  and  relations?  In  a  word,  these 
and  similar  demonstrations  satisfied  the  South  that  anti-slavery  and  abolition  will  nev- 
er pause  until  the  South  shall  refuse  submission,  or  be  trodden  under  foot. 

It  is  distinctly  premised  in  the  Reply,  that  anti-slavery  and  abolition  principles  and 
feelings,  in  the  North,  are  far  in  advance  of  laio,  and  the  petitions  presented,  as  well  as 
the  debates  and  action  at  the  last  General  Conference,  prove  it;  and  being  urged  as  the 
grand  reason  of  action,  does  not  the  Reply  avow,  what  the  Protest  charges,  an  extra 
judicial  procedure,  going  beyond  law  to  accomplish  ulterior  purposes?  The  petitions, 
too,  and  the  agitation,  by  Methodist  Preachers,  in  which,  to  a  great  extent,  they  had 
their  origin,  were  in  direct  violation  of  the  advice  and  authority  of  the  two  preceding 
General  Conferences,  as  we  have  shown,  and  the  action  of  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence dishonoring,  as  we  have  further  shown,  the  assurances  of  the  same  body  in  1836 
and  1840.  The  South,  on  these  accounts,  was  the  less  inclined  to  believe  that  the  um- 
pire Conferences  could  be  any  longer  relied  upon,  as  likely  to  pursue  a  medium,  com- 
promise course,  as  settled  by  the  law  of  the  Church.  Unprotected  by  the  pledge  of 
public  law,  upon  what  can  we  rely  for  the  security  of  our  rights?  What  is  our  safety, 
as  a  minority?  We  can  only  judge  the  future  from  the  past;  and  what  hope  of  in- 


demnity  is  aftbrdod  by  the  review?     The  conviction  is  general  in  the  South,  that  while 
we  remain  a  mere  minority,  as  now,  the  evil  is  without  remedy. 

On  all  the  great  interests  of  the  main  question,  there  is  no  division  of  public  opin- 
ion and  feeling,  except  as  individual  cases  usually  form  exceptions  to  general  rules. 
These  exceptions,  it  is  believed,  are  not  understood  North,  either  as  it  regards  the  po- 
litical or  religious  aspects  of  the  question.  In  the  pending  controversy  in  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  small  portions  of  the  ministry  and  membership,  in  border  sections  South, 
have  manifested  an  ill-disguised  inclination,  if  not  purpose,  so  to  adjust  themselves  to 
any  emergency  ahead,  that  it  will  be  an  easy  matter  to  find  themselves,  or  be  found, 
wherever  the  greatest  indemnity  of  circumstances  may  happen  to  present  the  only  at- 
traction they  are  likely  to'yield  to.  Another  portion,  small,  it  is  believed,  have  been 
misled  by  the  false  issues  so  constantly  and  plausibly  kept  before  them  ;  and  still  an- 
other portion  is  met  with,  whose  affinities  are  entirely  northern.  From  the  manner  in 
which  these  several  classes  have  reported  themselves,  it  has  been  inferred  North,  as  as- 
sumed here,  that  State  policy  and  public  popular  conviction  can  be  so  controlled  in  Ken- 
tucky, Missouri,  Virginia,  and  Maryland,  as  to  favor  the  views  and  movements  of  the 
North  on  this  subject.  Those  who  affect  to  think  so,  however,  have  entirely  miscal- 
culated, and  we  greatly  fear  that  it  will  be  found  necessary,  in  these  States,  to  resist  such 
a  state  of  things,  under  the  impulse  of  reasons  much  stronger  than  the  abstractions  of 
Church  casuistry.  It  is  believed  that  the  opinions  of  Southern  Methodism,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  type  pretty  fairly  the  opinions  of  general  society,  including  those  who 
do,  and  those  who  do  not  hold  slaves.  Southern  Methodists,  (with  exceptions  as  above,) 
maintain  that  no  abstract  principle  can  become  a  rule  of  action  without  regard  to  cir- 
cumstances. Here  the  North  and  South  divide  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  That  slave- 
ry is  an  evil,  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  The  Soulh  maintains,  however,  that  circumstan- 
ces, obviously  Providential,  and  not  subject  to  the  control  of  the  actor  or  agent,  so  mod- 
ify the  question  that  the  abstract  wrong  in  the  case  ceases  to  be  a  correct  principle  of 
judgment,  and  the  real  morality  of  slavery  can  only  be  judged  of  correctly,  in  view  of 
circumstances  which  may  either  increase  or  mitigate  the  evil,  and  gives  it,  in  fact,  its 
only  proper  moral  character.  By  this  rule  we  are  always  willing  to  be  judged.  The 
reasoning  of  the  Reply  admits  the  majority  acted  without  the  warrant  of  law  in  Bish- 
op Andrew's  case,  and  it  was  this  defection  and  trespass,  as  indicating  the  general  po- 
sition of  the  North,  which  stirred  the  South  to  resistance.  The  majority  required  not 
merely  what  they  knew  to  be  legally  impracticable,  but  what  they  knew  to  be  contrary 
to  law,  and  a  penal  offence.  They  said,  in  terras  which  cannot  be  misunderstood  where 
the  English  language  is  known,  that  Bishop  Andrew,  as  a  citizen  of  Georgia,  must  vio- 
late the  obligations  of  citizenship  in  that  State,  or  cease  to  bo  u  Bishop  of  tha  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Chnrch.  They  required  of  him  an  act  unlawful  in  itself,  in  the  State  of 
his  residence,  and  did  it  while  a  plain  law  of  the  Church  gave  public  and  formal  assu- 
rance it  should  not  be  done.  The  Reply  further,  in  the  whole  tenor  of  its  argument, 
admits  that  Bishop  Andrew  became  "unacceptable"  to  the  North,  without  having  vio- 
lated any  law  or  rule  of  the  Church.  It  will  certainly  be  admitted  that  a  Bishop  holds 
office  according  to  rule  and  law  regulating  the  conduct  and  duties  of  a  Bishop.  If,  then, 
Bishop  Andrew  had  not  infringed  these,  which  is  not  assumed,  and  yet  had  become  un- 
acceptable to  the  North,  does  it  not  show  that  the  requirements  of  the  North  went  be- 
yond law,  and  exacted,  as  the  condition  of  acceptability,  what  the  law  did  not  require] 
It  was  against  such  injustice  the  South  protested,  and  will  always  defend  herself. 

A  very  large  proportion  of  the  Minority  of  the  South,  in  the  late  General  Conference, 
have  no  connection  with  slavery,  and  so  far  as  it  may  depend  upon  themselves,  never  ex- 


pect  to  have  anv.  Many  of  them  have  done  much,  and  expect  to  do  more,  for  the  free- 
dom of  the  negro.  They  had  themselves  manumitted  a  large  number  of  slaves,  and  had 
been  the  rfleans  of  securing  the  freedom  of  many  others,  and  they  are  not  prepared  to 
submit  to  be  libelled  and  proscribed  by  those  who  never  have  and  are  never  likely  to  do 
any  thing  for  the  negro,  and  whose  zeal  seems  to  derive  its  principal  pabulum  from  the 
success  of  their  efforts,  in  preventing  others  from  doing  any  thing.  Beside,  we  have 
political  relations,  and  owe  civil  allegiance  in  the  States  in  which  we  reside  ;  and  is  it 
to  be  supposed,  that  civil  authority  and  public  opinion,  are  Vo  be  controlled  in  the  slave 
holding  States,  by  non-resident  ecclesiastical  rulers,  pr  that  Southern  Methodists  will 
submit  and  truckle  to  such  interference?  Mitigated  as  is  the  state  of  slavery,  say  in 
Maryland,  Western  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri ;  seen  as  it  is,  that  the  Northern 
division  of  the  Church  intends  to  regulate  the  rights  of  citizenship  and  property  as  it 
regards  the  ministry  and  membership  within  these  States,  or  else  subject  them  to  a  dis- 
franchisement  of  Church  rights;  will  these  States  continue  to  wink  at  such  interference, 
combined  as  they  know  it  to  be,  with  an  extensive  confederate  purpose,  on  the  part  of 
the  North,  to  compel  the  Church  South  to  submit  to  their  creed  and  policy  on  the  subject 
of  slavery1?  Tolerant  and  goodnatured  as  these  States  are  known  to  have  been,  those 
who  are  thus  abusing  public  clemency,  may  find  before  long,  that  they  have  reached  a 
limit,  beyond  which  they  are  not  to  pass,  in  hope  of  further  forbearance.  As  the  free- 
dom of  discussion  degenerates  into  insolence  of  dictation,  public  attention  is  becoming 
wakeful,  and  its  watchfulness  more  and  more  retributive.  There  has  recently  been  a 
most  labored  effort,  by  ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
Maryland,  Western  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  to  make  the  impression  North, 
that  as  large  portions  of  the  citizens  of  these  States  have  no  personal  connection  with 
slavery,  they  can  be  detached  from  Southern  interests,  and  induced  to  ally  themselves 
with  Northern  abolition  and  anti-slavery.  This  is  no  doubt  so,  with  regard  to  some. 
The  fact  just  named  proves  it.  But  so  far  as  it  is  the  purpose  to  induce  the  belief  that 
the  great  mass  of  non-slave  holding  citizens  in  these  States,  have  any  sympathy  with 
Northern  interference  respecting  slavery,  or  can  be  induced  to  separate  in  feeling  and 
interest,  from  those  holding  slaves  about  them,  our  Southern  men  with  Northern  predi- 
lections, will  find  themselves  sadly  mistaken.  This  class  of  citizens  may  not  approve — 
may  even  be  opposed  to  slavery,  but  knowing  the  rights  and  cherishing  the  interests  of 
the  States  to  which  they  belong,  they  will  always  be  found  ready  to  resist  any  interfer- 
ence with  them,  come  from  what  quarter  it  may.  Thousands  of  them,  ninety  nine  in 
the  hundred,  who  would  be  glad  to  see  slavery  extinct  in  the  land,  will  never  consent 
to  emancipation  except  upon  the  condition,  that  as  rapidly  as  the  slaves  are  freed,  they 
shall  be  removed  from  the  State.  Remove  them  with  the  prospect  that  they  will  do  well, 
and  very  few  will  object  to  their  freedom. 

Another  movement  on  the  part  of  the  late  General  Conference,  regarded  by  the  South 
as  high-handed  and  dangerous,  was  an  attempt  to  establish  the  novel  doctrine,  that  be- 
fore a  Methodist  traveling  preacher,  owning  slaves,  is  fairly  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  the  law  of  exception  in  the  Discipline,  he  must  do  all  in  his  power  to  effect  the  free- 
dom of  his  slaves  by  removal  (o  another  State  or  country.  A  very  slight  analysis  of 
the  proceedings  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  Harding,  will  show  that  in  the  ad- 
judication in  either  case,  this  lawless  expedient,  assumed  (however  indirectly,)  the 
shape  of  an  actual  requirement,  for  it  was  urged  that  however  impracticable  or  unlaw- 
ful emancipation  might  be  in  Georgia  and  Maryland,  the  difficulty  might  have  been 
overcome  by  removal,  and  the  defendants  are  accordingly  punished  for  not  availing  them- 
selves of  it,  although  the  requirement  is  utterly  without  the  pals  of  law— contrary  to 


77 

its  letter  and  purpose,  and  extra-legal  in  every  respect  in  which  it  can  be  looked  at. 
Can  Methodism  exist  South,  when  it  requires  Southern  ministers  to  expatriate  themselves 
in  order  to  secure  the  favor  and  protection  of -the  Church?  How  many  Southern  minis- 
ters will  avail  themselves  of  such  an  obliging  overture,  we  have  no  means  of  deciding. 
To  the  charge  made  in  form  and  variously  insinuated  in  high  places  at  the  North,  that 
the  Southern  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  pro-slavery  in  principle 
and  practice,  and  that  they  promote  and  uphold  the  system  from  the  love  of  it ;  that  in 
this  respect  they  are  not  Methodists  according  to  the  Discipline,  and  have  been  trying 
to  innovate,  so  as  to  induce  the  Church  to  depart  from  long  established  landmarks  on  the 
subject,  we  oppose  an  explicit  denial,  and  pronounce  the  charge  as  destitute  of  truth  as 
it  is  replete  with  injustice  and  outrage.  The  South  has  not  moved  in  this  matter  at  any 
period,  except  in  self  defence,  when  the  Church  has  been  disposed  to  decree,  that  a  civil 
relation,  sanctioned  by  the  supreme  authority  of  the  nation,  was  incompatible  with  the 
sanctity  of  Church  relations.  The  South  has  uniformly  acted  in  resistance  of  North- 
ern innovation.  And  especially  has  the  South  been  satisfied  since  the  last  compromise 
regulation  of  1816,  affranchising  slave  holding  ministers  as  it  regards  all  the  offices  of 
the  Church,  in  States  where  emancipation  is  impracticable.  We  have  sought  no 
change — we  wanted  none.  We  asked  for  none  at  the  late  General  Conference.  We 
are  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  law  as  it  is,  and  as  it  has  been  understood  and  interpre- 
ted both  by  the  General  Conference  and  the  executive  department  up  to  1844.  We  do 
object,  however,  and  we  never  will  submit  to  the  construction  put  upon  the  law  at  the 
last  General  Conference.  The  Majority  of  that  body  changed  the  law  essentially,  by 
giving  it  a  constructive  application  unknown  in  the  whole  range  of  its  administration; 
and  the  practical  effect  is  new  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  in  direct  conflict 
with  existing  law,  as  explained  by  the  General  Conference,  assuming,  among  other 
things,  that  no  owner  of  slaves,  under  any  circumstances,  however  providential,  and 
whatever  the  laws  of  the  State  may  be,  can  hold  or  exercise  the  office  of  Bishop  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This  proposition  of  the  Majority  misrepresents  the  law, 
and  disfranchises  in  terms,  every  slave  holding  minister  in  the  South,  and  in  fact  all  ab- 
solutely, as  all  are  liable,  without  any  agency  of  their  own,  to  become  the  owners  of 
slaves,  and  emancipation  is  no  where  practicable,  except  in  two  or  three  of  the  States, 
contingently.  This  decision  of  the  General  Conference  the  South  will  not  submit  to, 
because  they  cannot  do  so  without  self  destruction.  The  South  could  not,  without 
ruin,  and  will  not  from  principle,  submit  to  the  inequality  of  right  in  the  ministry, 
North  and  South,  assumed  and  attempted  to  be  established,  both  by  General  Conference 
action  and  in  the  Reply.  We  merely  claimed  the  right  of  equality,  on  the  basis  of 
law,  not  as  enforcable,  but  simply  declared  and  protected,  in  the  theory  of  government. 
While  affranchised  in  law,  we  were  willing  to  leave  it  to  the  Majority  to  avail  them- 
selves, at  any  time,  of  the  right  of  franchise,  as  they  saw  proper.  Enfranchisement, 
however,  by  declaratory  enactment,  with  the  avowed  purpose,  as  by  the  late  General 
Conference,  of  disfranchisemeni  in  fact,  is  too  gross  an  outrage  on  all  social  equity  to 
be  borne  by  the  Southern  ministry,  and  is  accordingly  resisted  with  almost  perfect  una- 
nimity. 

In  relation  to  the  charge  brought  against  the  Southern  Methodist  Ministry,  that  they 
are  the  supporters  and  promoters  of  slavery,  although  found  in  the  Northern  General 
Conference  papers,  we  are  by  no  means  anxious,  beyond  the  extent  to  which  it  com- 
pels us,  to  ascribe  the  charge  to  improper  motives,  on  the  part  of  those  who  make  it. 
We  are  perfectly  willing  to  be  compared  with  those  who  thus  defame  us,  at  any  time. 
Appealing  to  what  we  have  done,  and  are  doing  for  the  slave,  we  are  prepared  to  abide 


78 

the  judgment  of  the  wise  and  the  good.  To  be  reproached  and  misrepresented,  by  those 
who  have  never  appealed  to  any  rational  means  to  remove  the  evil  of  slavery,  and  who 
seek  to  atone  for  the  notorious  defect,  by  abusing  those  who  are  doing  all  that  can  be 
safely  done  to  this  effect,  that  is,  really  all  thai  is  done  at  all,  may  annoy  but  cannot 
alarm  the  Southern  Church.  We  regard  ourselves  as  involved  in  a  great  providential 
movement,  connected  with  the  destinies  of  the  African  race,  here  and  elsewhere. 
Were  it  in  our  power,  without  interfering  with  the  rights  of  others,  we  would  release 
them  from  civil  bondage;  but  as  it  is  not,  and  Christianity  directs  us  not  to  oppose  our- 
selves to  civil  authority,  but  instead,  to  submit  to  it,  as  "the  ordinance  of  God,"  we 
are  content  to  do  what  we  are  allowed  to,  to  alleviate  and  render  tolerable,  a  condition 
resulting  from  no  act  of  ours,  but  having  its  origin  in  the  organic  arrangements  of 
civil  society.  With  these  views,  we  shall  pursue  our  course  undeterred  by  any  amount 
of  cursing  or  abuse  from  our  enemies,  until  we  shall  have  fulfilled  our  mission,  or 
Providence  shall  indicate  a  different  course  of  action.  The  Church  South  has  been  the 
means  of  the  emancipation  of  thousands  of  slaves.  Methodist  ministers  alone,  since 
1*775,  have  given  freedom  to  thousands,  held  in  their  own  right.  Some  have  freed  from 
thirty  to  sixty  at  a  time.  And  not  only  have  they  aimed  at  the  good  of  the  negro  in 
this  way,  but  they  have  actually  evangelized,  including  the  dead  and  the  living,  several 
hundred  thousand  of  them  during  the  last  seventy  years,  beside  contributing  to  the  im- 
provement of  their  condition  in  other  respects,  vitally  connected  with  the  happiness  of 
time  and  the  hopes  of  eternity.  And  but  for  the  censorship  and  unkindness  of  the 
North,  (large  portions  always  excepted)  both  to  the  negro  and  his  benefactors, 
Southern  Methodism  had  achieved  for  the  slave  infinitely  more  than  it  has.  Northern 
uncharitableness,  in  the  shape  of  bitter  denunciation  and  arrogant  interference,  tends 
every  year  to  rivet  the  fetters  and  prolong  the  captivity  of  the  Southern  slave.  Who 
can  estimate  the  incalculable,  the  eternal  mischief  resulting  from  the  conduct  of  the 
North,  to  the  great  and  noble,  the  God-like  cause  of  emancipation  and  colonization? 
These  can  only  exist  and  operate  in  this  country,  as  cause  and  effect.  They  are  related  , 
inseparable  developments  of  the  benevolent  energies  of  a  great  people.  The  one  will 
not,  cannot  advance  without  the  other.  Together,  they  constitute  the  hope  of  the 
country,  in  relation  to  this  most  exciting  and  important  subject.  Emancipation  without 
removal,  without  colonization,  is  but  the  dream  of  the  visionary,  if,  indeed,  visionary 
ever  had  such  a  dream.  The  very  thought  is  folly  ;  it  cannot  be.  And  nothing  is  more 
certain,  than  that  the  conduct  of  the  North,  respecting  slavery,  has  arrested,  almost 
entirely,  both  emancipation  and  colonization.  They  have  re-enslaved  the  negro  of  the 
South.  They  havo  rolled  back  and  involved  in  darkness,  the  tide  of  light  and  life,  on 
its  passage  to  Africa.  In  the  year  1830,  more  negroes  obtained  their  freedom  in  Ken- 
tucky, than  have  been  freed  during  the  fourteen  years  since,  on  account  of  Northern 
interference  with  what  did  not  in  any  way  belong  to  them.  And  the  same  is  true,  and 
to  a  much  greater  extent,  of  other  portions  of  the  South.  There  was  a  general  dispo- 
sition to  favor  emancipation,  upon  condition  of  removal.  But,  alas,  how  has  this  fair 
work  of  God  been  defaced  and  thrown  down  by  the  insane  extravagance,  the  night- 
mare frenzy  of  Northern  abolitionism,  aided,  in  but  too  many  instances,  by  heads  and 
hands  consecrated,  and  with  the  vows  of  Gou  upon  them,  for  other  purposes!  And  is 
it  not  indeed  grievous,  most  afflicting,  to  see  the  old  anti-slavery  party  falling  oft'  from 
this  noble  work  of  God  and  man,  for  the  weal  of  the  negro,  wherever  found,  and  lend- 
ing themselves  to  measures  and  movements,  which,  by  retarding  the  gradual  freedom 
of  the  enslaved  negro  and  African  Colonization,  must  of  necessity  give  vigor  and  per- 
petuity to  the  curse  and  infamy  even  of  the  slave  trade  itself.  The  more  immediate 


79 


evils,  however,  of  anti-slavery  agitation,  connect  with  our  civil  and  political  rela- 
tions as  a  confederacy  of  free  and  slave  States.  Of  these  agitators,  Mr.  Frelinghuysen 
remarks,  they  ore  "seeking  to  destroy  our  happy  Union."  Chancellor  Walvvorth  says, 
"they  are  contemplating  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  property  secured  by  the  constitu- 
tion they  are  sworn  to  support,  and  pursuing  measures  which  must  lead  to  a  civil  war." 
The  lessons  of  experience  and  the  warning  voice  of  history  are  lost  upon  this  class  of 
disturbers.  What  do  they  care,  that  according  to  a  late  English  journal,  a  standing  ar- 
my in  the  West  Indies,  the  most  recent  example  to  which  they  can  appeal,  is  necessary 
"to  stifle  the  seeds  of  revolt  consequent  on  achieved  slave  emancipation."  Even  the 
virtuous  Clarkson,  iheir  own  witness,  is  unheeded  by  them  when  he  declares  that,  "the 
extent  to  which  voluntary  emancipation,  in  view  of  colonization  in  Africa,  had  taken 
place  in  the  United  States,  is  the  most  surprising  exhibition  of  human  virtue,  to  be  met 
with  in  the  whole  history  of  negro  emancipation." 

The  boast  of  the  Majority,  su  much  relied  upon  in  the  Reply,  that  the  Episcopacy  in 
the  whole  line  of  Bishops,  from  Coke  to  the  present  worthy  Bench,  has  never  had  any 
connection  with  slavery,  until  the  unfortunate  dereliclion  of  Bishop  Andrew,  is  rather 
premature.  The  Rev.  Wm.  Hummel,  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and  some  time 
missionary  in  the  West  Indies,  on  leaving  the  Methodist  Church  and  setting  up  for  him- 
self, as  a  separatist,  published,  in  1792,  a  virulent  pamphlet  against  Dr.  Coke,  and 
among  many  other  charges  enumerated,  the  most  of  which  are  clearly  and  ably  refuted 
by  Dr.  Coke,  in  his  answer,  he  brings  to  view  Dr.  Coke's  connection  with  slavery  in  the 
island  of  St.  Vincent,  alledging  that  the  Dr.  had  used  the  Caribb  Mission  fund,  in  the 
purchase  of  a  lot  of  negroes  to  work  a  cotton  and  coffee  plantation,  presented  by  the 
Colonial  Legislature,  for  the  benefit  of  the  mission.  Dr.  Coke,  in  his  reply,  now  before 
me,  printed  in  London  1793,  in  a  very  frank  and  satisfactory  manner,  disposes  of  many 
of  the  statements  and  inferences  of  Mr.  Hammet,  in  reference  to  this  transaction,  as 
incorrect  and  unjust,  but  distinctly  andin  various  forms  admits  the  fact,  that  with  money 
he  had  collected  for  the  Caribb  Mission,  and  funds  of  his  own,  he  had,  at  the  urgent 
solicitations  of  friends,  purchased  the  slaves  as  charged,  and  had  held  and  worked  them 
as  such,  upon  the  cotton  division  of  the  mission  plantation.  The  Dr.  assigns  as  the 
principal  reason  of  this  purchase  and  ownership  of  slaves,  that  he  could  not  have  the 
plantation  worked  to  advantage  by  either  free  negroes  or  hired  slaves.  He  says,  "in 
answer  to  the  charge  of  my  purchasing  slaves,  I  shall  give  an  account  of  the  transac- 
tion, (the  "purchase,)  with  all  possible  candor.  My  friends  on  all  sides  of  me  urged, 
that  the  present  might  be  considered  as  an  exempt  case— that  the  gift  of  the  land  was  un- 
doubtedly Providential — that  the  slaves  purchased  for  the  cultivation  of  it,  would  cer- 
tainly be  treated  by  us,  in  the  tenderost  manner.  These  and  other  arguments  prevailed, 
and  I  gave  directions  that  a  sufficient  supply  should  be  procured  for  the  cultivation  of 
cotton  on  the  low  land."  Whatever  we  may  think  of  it,  the  missionary  zeal  of  Dr. 
Coke  made  him  a  slave  holder,  by  actual  deliberate  purchase.  This  the  Dr.  avows  in 
explanation  of  his  course.  He  says  further:  "I  had  hardly  left  the  Island,  when  my 
established  principles  began  to  operate.  I  considered  that  no  exempt  case  could  justify 
the  proceeding— that  we  are  not  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come.  The  wound  continued 
to  deepen  in  my  mind  for  some  months,  till  I  at  last  wrote  from  Baltimore  to  inform 
our  missionary,  (Mr.  Baxter,)  that  I  could  not  admit  of  any  slaves  upon  the  estate,  on 
any  consideration.  Thus  I  have  stated  the  whole  business  of  the  slaves.  At  the  time  I 
acted  for  the  best,  and  humanum  e&t  errare."  The  Dr.  repudiates  the  charge  of  an 
abuse  of  the  missionary  fund,  by  stating  that  out  of  his  own  private  funds  he  paid  to 
the  mission,  an  amount  equivalent  to  the  sum  he  had  used  in  the  purchase  of  the  slaves, 


80 

and  adds  that  he  was  "the  only  looser  in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view."  The  Dr.  does  not 
say  that  he  gave  freedom  to  these  slaves  ;  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  such  fact,  unless 
it  may  be  inferred  from  the  Dr's.  [consciousness  of  wrong,  and  the  order  to  remove 
the  slaves  from  the  plantation.  In  the  absence  of  evidence,  however,  I  take  it  for  grant- 
ed the  Dr.  freed  them,  although  it  would  be  much  more  satisfactory  to  many  no  doubt, 
to  know  that  he  did.  I  introduce  this  historical  fact,  about  the  truth  of  which  no  one 
can  doubt,  merely  to  show  that  the  paraded  assumption  of  the  Reply,  our  Northern 
Journals,  and  the  North  generally,  that  no  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
has  ever  had  any  connection  with  slavery,  except  Bishop  Andrew,  is  not  true,  and  by 
consequence,  that  the  argument  and  action  of  the  Majority,  based  upon  it,  fall  to  the 
ground,  as  it  is  incontestably  certain,  that  the  first  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  a  slave  holder  by  voluntary  purchase,  and  not  as  Bishop  Andrew,  by  the 
unavoidable  control  of  circumstances.  All  that  has  been  said,  therefore,  about  the  law 
of  usage,  invariable  custom,  &c.  as  excluding  slavery  from  the  Episcopacy  not  being 
true,  is  of  course  entirely  inapplicable,  and  were  it  true,  would  be  equally  so.  Lord 
Bacon  lays  it  down  as  an  incontrovertible  principle  of  law  and  morals  :  "In  all  true 
judgment,  there  is  a  very  great  difference  between  an  usage,  to  prove  a  thing  lawful,  and 
a  non-usage  to  prove  it  unlawful."  The  difference  is,  the  first  may  be  legitimate  proof, 
whereas  the  second  is  always  preposterous.  And  yet  it  ranks  as  a  principal  argument 
against  the  Protest  of  the  South.  Because  it  is  true,  in  the  instance  of  all  the  Presi- 
dents of  the  United  States  from  the  North,  that  no  one  has  been  re-elected,  therefore  it 
is  a  settled  principle  of  the  government,  that  a  Northern  President  can  serve  but  for 
four  years — a  single  term.  Because  it  is  equally  true,  that  all  the  Southern  Presidents 
have  served  the  double  term  of  eight  years,  therefore,  it  is  a  settled  principle  of  the 
government  that  all  Southern  Presidents  shall  be  re-elected.  By  the  logic  of  our  North- 
ern friends,  no  one  can  question  the  validity  of  the  claim  or  the  soundness  of  the  de- 
monstration! 

The  attempt  to  show  that  the  North  has  conceded  to  the  South,  in  the  election  of 
Southern  men  as  Bishops,  is  too  absurd  to  require  more  than  a  brief  notice.  Dividing 
by  Conference  lines,  giving  Baltimore  to  the  North,  with  which  she  has  always  acted, 
until  she  divided  on  the  question  now  agitating  the  Church,  we  have  had  but  two  South- 
ern Bishops,  McKendree  and  Andrew.  The  first  three  Bishops  of  the  Church  were 
foreigners — English  abolitionists  of  the  school  of  Sharpeand  Clarkson.  Bishop  George 
was  from  the  Baltimore  Conference,  North.  Roberts,  Soule,  Hedding,  Fisk,  Morris, 
Waugh,  Hamline,  and  Janes,  were  elected  as  Northern  men.  McKendree  was  elected 
without  reference  to  the  slave  question.  Bishop  Andrew's  election,  by  Northern  votes, 
was  not  a  concession  to  the  South.  The  circumstances  under  which  Bishop  Andrew 
was  elected,  have  been  utterly  misrepresented.  As  was  perfectly  natural,  the  Southern 
delegates  in  1832,  were  anxious  that  one  of  the  Bishops  to  be  elected,  should  be  from 
the  South.  It  so  happened,  however,  (without  any  reference  to  slavery,)  that  the  only 
individuals  upon  whom  the  Southern  delegates  could  generally  unite,  were  in  fact, 
slave  holders,  an«l  as  the  Northern  majority  were  not  backward  to  let  it  be  known,  that 
no  slave  holder  could  be  elected,  the  Southern  delegates  determined  to  have  no  candi- 
date, and  allow  the  majority  to  select  the  men  they  might  prefer.  They  selected  J.  O. 
Andrew  as  on«,  knowing  he  was  not  the  choice  of  the  South,  and  that  they  were  not 
gratifying  the  Southern  delegates,  (except  a  few,)  in  doing  so.  It  was  the  avowed  pol- 
icy of  the  North,  to  elect  a  Southern  man,  that  there  might  be  no  apparent  ground  of 
complaint  from  the  South,  and  yet  to  accomplish  their  own  purposes  in  the  exclusion  of 
the  men  preferred  by  the  South,  who  happened  to  be  the  owners  of  slaves.  The  North 


, 

SI 

did  not  elect  Bishop  Andrew  as  the  candidate  of  the  South.     They  knew  he  was  not  th« 
choice  of  the  South,  and  would  not  be  supported  by  a  majority  of  the  Southern  delegates, 
especially  as  the  latter  knew  he  had  been  fixed  upon  by  the  North  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  defeating  the  wishes  of  the  South.     The  idea   therefore,  so  industriously  incul- 
cated, that  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  South  have  violated  the  conditions  of  a  private  un- 
derstanding, in  the  instance  of  the  Bishop's  election,    by  the  position  they  assumed  at 
the  late  General  Conference,  has  no  foundation  in  truth.     Furthermore,   Northern  men 
elected  Bishop  Andrew  without  consulting  him — without  coming  to  any  understanding 
with  him  or  the  South  on  the  subject.     Northern  views  and  purposes  were  alone  con- 
sulted.    The  South  was  not  deferred  to,  nor  cared  for  in  the  matter,  beyond  the   fact, 
well  understood  at  the  time,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  that  the  election  of  a  Southern  man 
would  silence  the  South,  or  compel  the  avowal,  they  wanted  a  slave  holding  Bishop! 
Such  are  the  facts,  as  I  understood  them  at  the  time,  and  I  believe  them  to  be  correct ; 
from  which  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  see  to  what  extent  Bishop  Andrew  and   the  South 
are  indebted  to  Northern  magnanimity,  so  plausibly  set  forth  in  the  Reply,  and  various 
other  accounts  we  have  had  of  Bishop  Andrew's  election.     No  little  stress  has  been  laid 
upon  the  fact,  that  some  suggestions  appeared  in  some  of  the  Southern  papers  of  tho 
Church,  to  the  effect,  that  the  election  of  a  slave  holder  to  the  Episcopacy,  would  go  far 
to  quiet  the  apprehensions  of  many  in  the  South,  that  a  purpose  existed  in  the  North, 
to  proscribe  the  Southern  ministry  in  this  respect,  so  far  as  they  might  be  connected 
with  slavery.     By  the  law  of  the  Church  and  the  authoritative  exposition  of  the  law  by 
the  General  Conference,  no  legal  barrier  existed  to  preclude  such  election,  and  the  of- 
fense, therefore,  alledged  in  the  Reply,  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  and  else- 
where, could  only  mean,  that  in  the  judgment  of  some,  the  interest  of  the  South  might 
be  promoted,  should  the  North  be  sufficiently  just  and  generous,  not  to  make  an  objec- 
tion of  that  which  the  law  had  explicitly  declared  should  not  operate  any  forfeiture  of 
right,  in  view  of  any  of  the  offices  of  the  Church.     The  only  offense  charged,  was  sim- 
ply to  state  the  constitutional  claim  of  eligibility — the  legal  qualification   necessary — 
not  a  right  to  be  elected  in  fact,  of  which  no  one  ever  thought — but  the  claim  of  being 
eligible  ;  under  no  legal  disability,  which  is  in  itself  one  of  the  plainest  and  best  de- 
fined rights  known  in  the  theory  of  government.     And  right  to  this  effect,  and  so  un- 
derstood, is  as  clearly  secured  to  the  Southern  slave  holder,  who  cannot  legally  emanci- 
pate his  slaves,  and  secure  to  them  freedom  after  emancipation,  as  any  other  right  be- 
longing to  the  ministry,  North  or  South.     And  to  make  the  mere  claim  of  this  right  an 
offense,  is  so  manifestly  unjust,  that   in   itself  it  furnishes  a  strong  reason  with  the 
South  for  the   proposed  separation.     If  we   are   to  be  punished  for  barely   reminding 
the  North  of  a  constitutional  claim,  it  is  really  high  lime  we  had  placed  ourselves  in  a 
position  to  resist  such  constructive  nullification  of  law  and  right.     This  whole  argu- 
ment, however,  proceeds  upon  a  shameful  raisstatement  of  facts.     It  is  warily  attempt- 
ed to  make  the  impression,  that  the  South  first  moved  in  this  matter,  and  put  forth  an 
unheard  of,  unlawful  claim,  whereas  we  have  seen  that  the  right  is  an  undoubted  one, 
secured  by  law  and  asserted  by  the  General  Conference;  and  it  is  further  true,  that  the 
South  was  silent  until  after  the  public  denial  of  the  right  by  a  Northern  "Convention  of 
ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  and  the  purpose  officially 
avowed  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  next  General  Conference.     The  subject  was  first 
agitated  in  the  Nortii,  and  assumed  there  a  most  exciting  and  threatening  aspect.     This 
was  well  known  to  Dr.  Bond,  and  to  both  the  authors  and  signers  of  the  Reply,  for  it 
had  extensive  publicity  iu  the  papers  of  the  Church,  before  a  word  was  heard  from  the 
South  on  the  subject.     This  novel  Northern  movement  was  regarded  as  so  manifestly 


offensive  and  out  of  character,  that  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal  vindicated  the 
claim  of  the  South  as  clear  matter  of  right,  (whether  expedient  to  assert  it  or  not,)  and 
rebuked  the  Northern  agitators,  as  guilty  of  an  obvious  outrage  upon  Southern  right  and 
feeling,  and  informing  them  at  the  same  time,  that  they  could  not  sustain  their  position 
before  the  Church.  The  conduct  of  the  South,  therefore,  gravely  charged  as  an  offense, 
in  the  shape  of  a  daring  innovation,  was  a  simple  act  of  self  defence  against  Northern 
aggression,  notoriously  committed  in  defiance  of  law,  and  in  the  face  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  the  repeated  formal  attempts  to  make  a  contrary  impression,  injurious  to 
the  South,  has  rendered  it  necessary  to  direct  attention,  both  to  the  misstatement  of  fact 
and  the  manifest  injustice  of  the  conclusion,  founded  upon  it.  The  only  force  found  in 
the  argument,  recoils  upon  the  North,  as  every  one  will  perceive  by  barely  looking  at  it. 
As  having  a  direct  bearing  upon  this  whole  controversy,  it  is  important  to  notice, 
that  the  rights  of  the  ministry,  as  affected  by  simple  slave  holding,  in  States  where 
emancipation  is  not  practicable,  having  been  brought  by  memorial  from  Westmoreland, 
Virginia,  before  two  General  Conferences  successively,  those  of  1336  and  1840  ;  the 
latter  decided,  that  "the  Discipline  of  the  Church  having  provided  for  the  ordination  of 
ministers  thus  circumstanced,  the  course  pursued  by  the  Baltimore  Conference,  (within 
whose  limils  Westmoreland  is  found,)  operates  an  abridgement  of  right,  and  therefore, 
tuTnixhes  just  ground  of  complaint.  It  is  a  departure  from  the  plain  intendrnent  of 
law  in  the  case,  and  a  violation,  not  less  of  express  compact  than  of  social  justice,  to 
withhold  ordination  for  reasons  which  the  provisions  of  the  law  plainly  declare  are  not 
to  be  considered  as  a  forfeiture  of  right."  Here  the  General  Conference  style  the  law 
on  slavery  an  express  compact,  and  by  various  forms  of  proof,  we  have  shown,  that  it 
was  a  compromise  as  truly  as  a  compact.  But  this  by  the  way.  The  decision  from 
which  we  quote,  adds,  "attaching  themselves  to  the  Church,  as  citizens  of  Virginia, 
where  in  the  obvious  sense  of  the  Discipline,  emancipation  is  impracticable,  the  holding 
of  slaves,  or  failure  to  emancipate  them,  cannot  be  plead  in  bar  to  the  right  of  ordina- 
tion. The  Church  has  failed  to  redeem  the  pledge  of  its  men  laws,  by  refusing  or  fail- 
ing to  promote  to  office,  ministers  in  whose  case  no  disability  attaches  on  the  ground 
of  slavery.  The  exception  in  the  Discipline  is,  therefore,  strictly  applicable  to  all  min- 
isters and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  holding  slaves  in  Virginia,  and 
they  appear  clearly  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  rule,  made  and  provided  in  such  cases." 
The  question  thus  settled  by  the  General  Conference,  can  be  misunderstood  by  no  one, 
and  yet  the  Baltimore  Conference  has  continued  to  withhold  justice  from  the  ministry 
connected  with  slavery  in  this  section  of  Virginia,  in  violation  both  of  general  law  and 
special  adjudication,  by  the  General  Conference,  had  upon  the  law.  The  Baltimore 
Conference  has  found  judicial  security  against  arraignment  for  such  injustice,  in  the 
fact,  that  that  body  has  so  managed,  as  to  be  always  able  to  defy  proof  that  ordination 
was  withheld  on  account  of  slavery  alone,  and  not  for  other  reasons.  How  far  the  fair, 
the  just,  and  the  honorable,  connect  with  the  grounds  of  this  impunity,  in  resisting  the 
authority  of  the  General  Conference,  those  interested  must  determine  for  themselves. 
That  it  is  a  procedure  unwarranted  by  law,  and  in  violation  of  its  plain  provisions,  as 
solemnly  adjudicated  upon  by  the  General  Conference,  no  one,  it  is  believed,  will  enter- 
tain a  doubt.  The  law  and  the  General  Conference  have  both  been  set  aside.  The 
decision  adds,  §'the  petitioners,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline, 
whether  said  provisions  be  right  or  wrong,  are  entitled  to  remedy,"  and  suggests  in 
terms,  that  a  transfer  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  is  perhaps,  under  all  the  circumstan- 
ces, the  only  "conclusive  remedy"  for  the  party  aggrieved.  Whether  the  portion  of 
tbe  Church  in  this  section  of  Virginia,  will  act  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  General 


83 

Conference,  and  seek  connection  with  the  Virginia  Conference,  or  remain  as  heretofore, 
in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  or  seek  an  independent  Conference  existence,  is  a  matter 
about  which  we  have  nothing  to  say.  The  principle  involved  however,  was  too  impor- 
tant to  be  overlooked,  and  having  placed  the  matter  in  its  proper  light,  as  it  regards  law 
and  right,  we  leave  it  where  it  was  left  by  the  decision  of  the  General  Conference. 

A  very  staid  effort  has  been  made  to  convince  the  church  and  world  that  as  the  only 
condition  of  continued  union,  the  South  insists  that  slavery  must  be  admitted  into  the 
Episcopacy.  The  sophistry  of  this  position  can  have  escaped  the  notice  of  but  few. 
The  fact  is,  as  we  have  shown  at  large,  in  various  ways,  the  last  General  Conference 
avowed  the  principle,  and  took  stand  upon  the  ground,  that  no  Minister  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  having  connection  with  slavery,  under  any  circumstan- 
ces, could,  by  constitutional  right,  exercise  the  office  of  Bishop;  and  further,  that 
the  principle  assumed,  and  the  ground  thus  taken,  were  to  constitute  the  only  condi- 
tion upon  which  the  Union  between  the  North  and  the  South  can  be  perpetuated.  So 
far,  therefore,  from  the  South  setting  up  a  new  term  or  condition  of  Union,  the  reverse 
is  true,  and  the  innovation  comes  from  the  North  ;  for  they  proceeded  to  make  that  a 
condition  of  Union,  which,  in  the  shape  of  law,  and  formal  declaration  by  the  General 
Conference,  they  had  assured  the  church  and  the  world  should  not  be  required  of  any 
man,  in  view  of  any  of  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  And  the  truth  turns  out  to  be,  that  instead  of  Southern  in- 
novation, we  have  Northern  violation  of  law  and  right,  beside  the  dishonored  pledge  of 
the  General  Conference,  upon  which  the  South  relied  as  security  against  the  wrong 
thus  inflicted.  The  question  is  not,  whether  Southern  Methodist  Preachers  ought  not 
to  concede  that  no  slave  holder  shall  ever  exercise  the  functions  of  Bishop,  rather 
than  divide  the  Church,  but  whether  it  is  their  duty  to  submit  to  a  declared  inequality  of 
right,  contrary  to  laic,  and  knowing  that  such  submission  must  forever  cripple  and  de- 
grade the  Church  in  the  South,  where  public  opinion  is  known  to  be  utterly  intolerant 
of  any  such  assumption.  The  offense  of  the  North  is  a  denial  and  abuse  of  right  se- 
cured by  law.  The  question  of  slavery  is  settled  by  law.  Does  the  law  disfranchise? 
It  does  not,  and  until  it  does,  the  South  says  the  Church  shall  not.  What  the  South 
assumes,  in  this  respect,  seems  to  have  been  admitted  as  well  as  denied  by  the  North. 
By  two  very  important  votes,  the  last  General  Conference  decided  that  a  slave  holder 
may  be  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  Bishop  Andrew  was  declared 
to  be  such;  and  this  certainly  amounts  to  a  virtual  declaration,  that  a  slave  holder  may 
be  constitutionally  elected  to  the  office.  Whatever  would  bar  his  election  would,  of 
course,  bar  his  holding  office.  What  nght,  then,  has  the  Conference  to  depose  or  pun- 
ish for  that  which  constitutes  no  barrier  to  election!  As  the  South  had  been  profound- 
ly silent  on  the  subject,  why  did  the  North  set  up  the  hue  and  cry  about  the  election  of 
a  slave  holding  Bishop?  What  would  have  been  thought,  North,  had  ten  thousand  peti- 
tioners from  the  South  prayed  the  last  General  Conference  not  to  elect  a  negro  a  Bishop1} 
It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  they  had  quite  as  good  reasons  for  getting  up  petitions 
to  this  effect,  as  the  North  had  for  the  conduct  of  which  we  complain.  The  stale 
charge,  and  contemptible  as  it  is  stale,  that  certain  Southern  Ministers  favor  separa- 
tion, because  they  wish  to  become  Bishops,  is  only  entitled  to  notice,  because  men 
from  whom  nothing  of  the  kind  could  have  been  expected,  have  risked  the  disreputa- 
tion of  giving  it  currency.  When  it  is  recollected,  however,  that  some  men  have  no 
means  of  judging  others,  except  by  themselves,  and  advert  to  the  additional  fact,  that 
there  is  equally  good,  and  indeed  much  stronger  reason  to  believe  that  those  who  ma- 


84 

lign  and  defame  in  this  way,  are  acting  exclusively  with  a  view  to  their  own  personal 
and  party  interests,  the  charge  is  replied  to  quite  beyond  its  merits. 

A  similar  perversion  of  facts  is  found  in  the  charge,  that  the  South  declined  the  pro- 
position of  the  Bishops,  to  postpone  the  whole  subject  until  another  General  Confer- 
ence, because  they  would  not  submit  to  Bishop  Andrew's  resignation,  ad  interim.  This 
charge  is  wholly  untrue.  No  such  proposition  was  made  by  the  Bishops.  Their  pro- 
position was.  that  Bishop  Andrew  should,  meanwhile,  perform  his  Episcopal  functions 
as  usual,  except  that  he  was  not  to  have  charge  in  the  North,  er  where  he  might  be  ob- 
jected to  as  the  owner  of  slaves  ;  and  the  whole  South,  to  a  man,  favored  the  proposi- 
tion. The  Reply  treats  the  charge  of  the  Protest,  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  proceeded 
against  extra-judicially,  as  something  quite  monstrous,  and  yet  no  small  portion  of  its 
reasoning  plainly  admits  the  justice  of  the  allegation.  The  most  common  and  popular 
meaning  of  extra-judicial,  is,  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  judicial  procedure;  and  the 
Reply  not  only  admits  the  proceeding  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case  to  be  of  this  character, 
but  argues  at  length  to  prove  that  nothing  was  left  the  Majority,  in  the  exigence  of  the 
case,  but  to  pursue  such  a  course,  and  thus  proves  what  the  Protest  assumes.  The 
Protest  also  charges  a  lawless  procedure,  and  the  Reply  not  only  admits,  but  directly 
assumes,  that  having  a  right  to  do  so,  the  Majority,  under  the  stress  of  circumstances, 
deemed  it  necessary  to  act  without  any  appeal  to  law,  and  thus  clearly  sustains  the  Pro- 
test in  this  instance  also.  The  whole  burden  of  the  Manifesto  goes  to  show,  that 
Bishop  Andrew  was  laid  aside,  not  for  any  offence  against  any  law  of  the  Church,  but 
because  he  had  rendered  himself  unacceptable  to  the  North,  by  marrying  a  lady  pos- 
sessed of  slaves,  although  years  before,  the  Providence  of  God  had  made  him  the  own- 
er of  slaves,  without  his  consent,  and  against  his  will,  and  in  a  State  where  he  is  im- 
peratively required  to  hold  them,  and  even  an  attempt  to  free  them,  subjects  him  to  pro- 
secution and  punishment.  See  the  law. 

Not  offending  against,  but  being  fully  protected  by  law,  Bishop  Andrew  could  only  be 
unacceptable  to  the  North  so  far  as  the  law  is  so.  The  real  cause  of  his  being  unac- 
ceptable, is  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  rapid  growth  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  North, 
has  antiquated  the  law,  and  it  ceases  to  type  Methodist  opinion  and  feeling  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  Both  are  far  ahead  of  law,  and  the  fact  is  admitted  by  the  Reply,  and 
urged  as  a  reason  of  action.  The  Reply  argues,  that  as  the  Episcopacy  is  common  to 
the  whole  Church,  law  or  no  law,  slaverv  must  be  kept  out  of  it,  because  the  North 
will  not  tolerate  it.  Tho  Reply,  however,  forgets  to  argue  further,  that  the  General 
Conference  is  as  common  to  the  whole  Church,  as  Episcopacy,  and  much  more  so  in 
many  respects,  (and,  according  to  the  Repliers,  a  thousand  fold  more  important,)  and, 
therefore,  must  be  kept  free  from  slavery  too.  The  Majority  insist  that  the  purpose 
of  the  constitution  can  only  be  carried  out  by  having  Bishops  acceptable  everywhere. 
Of  course  they  conscientiously  electioneered  and  voted  for  men  as  Bishops,  in  May 
last,  that  they  believed  would  be  acceptable  to  the  whole  Church,  South  as  well  as 
North,  or  otherwise  must  have  dishonored  their  own  principles.  Had  Bishop  Andrew 
yielded  to  the  demands  of  the  Majority,  as  going  beyond,  and  in  contravention  of  the 
law  in  the  case,  he  would  have  rendered  himself  unacceptable  to  the  whole  South  ;  for 
the  North  to  require  it,  therefore,  was,  upon  their  own  showing,  a  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution. 

One  of  the  false  issues  attempted  to  be  made  by  the  Reply,  and  some  of  our  Northern 
Church  papers,  is,  that  the  North  is  opposed  to  slavery  ;  the  South  resists  their  hostile 
demonstrations ;  therefore  the  South  is  pro-slavery.  This  logic  seems  to  be  endorsed 
us  perfectly  irrefutable  by  a  large  portion  of  the  Northern  Church,  destitute,  as  it  is, 


35 


of  even  the  semblance  of  either  reason  or  argument.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  taken  in-, 
to  the  account  at  all,  that  the  opposition  of  the  South  may  relate  entirely  to  what  they 
regard  as  the  unlawful  and  dangerous  means  resorted  to  in  order  to  correct  the  evil. 
Two  physicians  meet  at  the  bed-side  of  a  patient ;  one  prescribes,  and  the  other  oppos- 
es the  prescription;  therefore  the  latter  seeks  the  death  of  the  patient.  Comment  is  un- 
necessary. 

The  Reply  utterly  perverts  the  position  of  the  Protest  with  regard  to  "the  reasons  of 
the  law"  of  slavery.  The  Protest,  assuming  the  general  law  as  a  compromise  arrange- 
ment, settling  the  principle  of  action  upon  which  the  parties  agreed  to  act,  appeals  to 
the  "reasons,"  or  final  cause  of  such  an  arrangement,  to  show  that  the  practical  pur- 
pose had  in  view  would  be  essentially  defeated,  by  making  any  class  of  ministers  an 
exception  to  its  operation  ;  and  in  all  that  is  said  in  the  Reply,  the  real  principle  involv- 
ed is  kept  entirely  out  of  sight,  and  not  even  glanced  at. 

Another  specimen  of  the  consistency  of  the  Majority,  respecting  slavery,  is,  that 
the  General  Conference  is  everything,  and  the  Episcopacy  nothing,  comparatively,  and 
yet  slavery  in  the  General  Conference,  where  it  has  been  found  since  1792,  does  no 
harm,  or  at  least  is  to  be  tolerated,  while,  in  the  Episcopacy,  it  is  ruinous  of  the 
Church  !  In  the  greater  it  is  very  well,  but  in  the  less  it  is  not  to  be  endured  !  Bishop 
Hamline's  "Croton  River"  may  be  polluted  with  it,  but  if  it  be  found  in  the  Episcopal 
Reservoir,  supplied  by  this  same  river,  (no  matter  about  the  other  reservoirs,)  woe  be- 
tide the  Church!  In  one  breath,  or  paragraph,  Bishop  Andrew  is  pure  and  spotless, 
and  the  laudation  of  his  virtues,  superior  fitness,  and  admirable  qualifications,  is  al- 
most offensive  to  good  taste ;  in  another,  it  is  gravely  debated  whether  he  ought  not  to 
bo  impeached  for  improper  conduct,  and  he  is  declared  to  have  violated  an  important 
trust,  and  to  be  a  dishonored  man.  The  charge  against  Bishop  Andrew  was,  connec- 
tion with  slavery.  The  law  of  slavery  consists  of  the  general  rule  on  that  subject,  and 
the  10th  section.  The  arraignment  of  the  Bishop  is  based  upon  an  assumed  infraction, 
not  of  either  of  these,  but  one  of  the  restrictive  articles,  having  no  reference  to  the 
subject,  and  binding  only  upon  the  triers  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Both  the  general  rule 
and  the  specific  law  regulating  the  subject,  with  regard  to  all  our  ministers,  are  eva- 
ded, and  the  constitution  appealed  to,  at  a  point  having  no  reference  to  the  matter  in 
hand;  and  thus,  by  construction,  we  have  ex  post  facto  legislation,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  an  offence  of  that,  which  was  not  such,  by  the  only  Jaw  applicable  in  the  case. 
In  proceeding  to  action,  they  quote  the  constitution  as  law,  but  when  held  responsible 
for  the  action  had,  they  assure  us  no  law  was  appealed  to,  but  the  emergency  met  and 
disposed  of  without  reference  to  law  !  The  Reply  assumes  the  latter,  and  Finley's 
Preamble  proves  the  former. 

The  Reply  says  it  was  prevalently  believed  by  the  Majority,  that  Bishop  Andrew 
might  have  been  impeached  for  "improper  conduct,"  under  the  express  provisions  of  the 
Discipline.  The  only  improper  conduct  charged,  was  slave  holding.  On  this  subject 
we  have  express  law,  it  is  true,  but  Doctors  Durbin,  Peck,  and  Elliott,  as  the  expoun- 
ders of  law  for  the  Majority,  maintain  that  it  does  not  apply  to  Bishops,  and  of  course 
the  Discipline  has  no  "express  provisions"  of  any  kind,  applicable  in  the  case.  In  the 
absence  of  all  law  then,  as  the  Doctors  contend,  where  are  we  to  look  for  the  "express 
provisions"  of  law  on  which  to  base  an  impeachment?  No  latitude  of  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  phrase  "improper  conduct,"  will  answer  the  purpose  of  the  Repliers,  for 
slave  holding  is  the  only  conduct  in  question,  and  this,  it  is  alledged,  the  law  does  not 
recognize  as  "improper"  in  the  instance  of  a  Bishop,  as  that  officer  is  exempt  from  its 
claims.  Impeachment,  therefore,  was  impossible,  in  the  premises  of  the  difficulty,  ac- 


S6 

cording  to  the  showing  of  the  very  men  who  claim  no  small  share  of  credit  on  the 
ground  of  forbearance,  that  is,  for  not  doing  what,  according  to  their  own  argument, 
they  could  not  do.  From  the  reasoning  in  portions  of  the  Reply,  and  particularly  in 
some  of  the  speeches  on  the  same  side,  the  alledged  misconduct  of  Bishop  Andrew 
would  seern  to  be  the  mere  fact,  that  he  had  rendered  himself,  or  by  some  means  had 
become  unacceptable  to  the  North.  Ho  could  not,  it  is  said,  be  a  General  Superinten- 
dent. Why  not?  In  view  of  what  law  is  he  delinquent?  We  are  told  he  is  a 
slave  holder.  Grant  it.  On  this  subject  we  have  a  law,  and  Doctors  Durbin,  Peck, 
and  Elliott,  or  if  it  be  preferred,  the  Majority  admit,  as  plainly  as  they  deny,  that  it 
includes  Bishops  as  well  as  other  Ministers.  By  this  law  Bishop  Andrew  is  innocent 
— he  is  fully  protected,  and  notwithstanding  the  argument  of  the  Reply — of  Bishop  Ham- 
line  and  others,  to  prove  that  the  Majority  are  a  law  to  themselves,  still  it  is  obviously 
felt  North,  as  well  as  South,  that  it  is  necessary  to  invoke  some  other  law,  to  prove  de- 
linquency in  view  of  some  other  standard,  in  order  to  give  the  right  of  punishment. 
Since  writing  the  preceding  sentence,  I  have  opened  a  letter  from  an  old  veteran  of 
the  North,  the  pupil  of  Aabury,  and  the  associate  of  Emory,  to  read — "I  have  no  doubt 
you  have  the  Discipline  on  your  side — Bond  and  others  have  expediency."  Another, 
from  a  different  Northern  Conference,  says,  "God  speed  you,  and  so  say  thousands 
North  of  the  line."  I  could  quote  pages  to  the  same  effect,  from  Northern  men,  not- 
withstanding the  blustering  gasconade  with  which  it  is  attempted  to  make  the  impres- 
sion that  the  whole  Church,  North,  regards  the  Church,  South,  as  guilty  of  apostacy 
from  the  first  principles  of  Methodism.  The  Reply  avows  a  change  of  Northern  sen- 
timent, and  the  law  remaining  the  same,  the  change  avowed  explains  why  Bishop  An- 
drew is  unacceptable  North.  Could  this  be  more  conclusively  proved,  than  by  the  fact, 
that  Finley's  resolution  lays  Bishop  Andrew  aside  upon  a  prohibition  of  the  constitu- 
tion, applying  only  to  the  General  Conference  itself,  and  which  could  only  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  Bishop  Andrew  by  a  manifest  abuse  of  judicial  trust.  The  real  difficul- 
ty, the  only  cause  of  embarrassment,  is  found  in  the  relations  between  the  Church, 
North,  and  the  Discipline,  and  not  in  the  relations  between  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  law. 
Another  proof,  equally  strong  and  pertinent,  is  furnished  by  the  preface  to  the  reso- 
lution of  Griffith  and  Davis,  in  which  the  present  is  declared  to  be  the  least  favorable 
period  in  our  history  for  tolerating  a  Bishop  connected  with  slavery.  And  we  again 
ask  why?  There  is  the  law  without  change  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Is  it  intended 
to  say  the  Church  will  not  abide  by  ill  The  Bible  too,  is  the  same.  Are  we  thus  no- 
tified, that  while  no  want  of  acceptableness  connects  with  the  Bishop's  relations  to  the 
Bible  or  Methodism,  such  want  does  connect  with  the  Church?  And  what  is,  the  infer- 
ence? Who  does  not  perceive  that  the  Church  is  in  advance  of  both,  and  that  both  are 
required  to  yield  to  the  innovations  of  party  expediency?  How  came  it  to  pass,  too, 
that  Bishop  Andrew  was  declared,  by  the  Majority,  good  enough  for  the  office  of  Bish- 
op, but  unfit  to  perform  its  duties?  By  what  warrant  of  candor  or  consistency  do  they 
declare  his  official  incumbency  both  constitutional  and  expedient,  while  he  is  forbidden, 
and  it  is  inexpedient  for  him  to  do  the  work  of  a  Bishop?  Are  we  to  understand,  that 
as  Christianity  and  Methodism  had  failed  to  discredit  the  Bishop,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Majority,  it  devolved  upon  the  Church  to  do  it?  Another  view  of  the  subject  con- 
ducts us  to  the  same  conclusion. 

Methodism  has  always  maintained,  that  all  the  high  moral  objects  of  the  ministry 
connect  as  essentially  with  the  office  of  Presbyter  as  of  Bishop.  By  admitting,  there- 
fore, as  Methodism  always  has,  that  slave  holding  may,  in  given  circumstances,  com- 
port with  all  the  relations  and  duties  of  an  Elder  in  the  Church  of  God,  it  is  admitted, 


87 

when  it  is  made  an  objection  under  the  same  circumstances  in  a  Bishop,  that  the 
Church  is  influenced  by  conduct  and  reasons  not  disapproved  by  Heaven,  and  the  Church 
is  thus  boastfully  presented,  as  exacting  of  a  Bishop,  what  it  is  conceded  God  himself 
does  not  require  of  an  Elder — both  being1  in  the  samo  order  of  the  ministry.  Should 
considerations  in  a  matter  so  weighty  as  the  ministerial  office  be  allowed  to  control 
Church  action,  while  it  is  admitted  the  Divine  conduct  is  in  no  way  influenced  by  them? 
In  proof  of  the  disposition  and  purpose  of  the  Northern  Division  of  the  Church  to  med- 
dle with  the  question  of  slavery  beyond  all  existing  warrant  of  political  or  ecclesias- 
tical law,  mark  the  force  of  the  following  language,  in  one  of  the  principal  organs  of 
the  Majority — The  Western  Christian  Advocate  :  "The  Methodists  have  never  yet  ta- 
ken any  measures  to  bring  their  lieu-s  to  bear  upon  ihe  elections  of  the  country,  although 
this  is  their  privilege,  whenever  they  may  see  Jit  to  exercise  it ;  and  it  may  be  yet,  if 
it  is  not  now,  their  duly,  to  exercise  the  elective  franchise,  constitutionally  and  legally, 
against  slavery  and  in  faior  of  freedom."  The  policy  thus  intimated,  if  not  threaten- 
ed, can  only  be  brought  to  bear  in  one.  or  both  of  two  ways — in  the  election  cf  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  or  in  an  attempt  by  change  to  destroy  the  compromise  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  The  election  of  President,  should  the  incumbent  even  be  a  thor- 
ough-going abolitionist,  could  not  be  brought  "to  bear  against  slavery,"  except  by  lat- 
eral methods,  and  very  indirectly,  and  by  no  means  with  certain  effect  at  all,  and  in 
view  of  his  well  known  intelligence,  we  cannot  suppose  that  this  was  what  the  editor 
had  his  eye  upon,  when  he  penned  the  monitory  sentence  we  have  just  quoted.  The 
allusion,  to  have  fitness,  and  be  of  any  force,  must  have  been  to  the  fact  formally  avow- 
ed in  other  Northern  Methodist  Papers,  that  it  is  not  unlikely  the  three  hundred  thou- 
sand votes  of  the  Northern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may,  from  a  sense  of  "duty,'» 
and  to  satisfy  the  conscience  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  yet  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
a  change  of  the  national  compact  "against  slavery;"  that  is,  receding  from  the  origi- 
nal condition  of  Union,  as  it  regards  slavery,  and  of  course  dissolving  the  National 
Confederacy,  as  all  know  this  would  be  the  result.  Unless  we  have  misunderstood  this 
and  similar  intimations,  the  South  can  hardly  have  been  premature  in  deliberating  upon 
the  necessity  of  separation. 

The  attempt  in  the  Reply  to  magnify  the  state  of  dread  and  apprehension  in  the 
North,  as  it  regards  a  slave  holding  Bishop,  is  really  surprising.  How  could  the  North 
dread,  what  they  knew  they  had  the  power  of  preventing,  by  having  an  actual  majority 
of  more  than  two  thirds  in  the  General  Conference"!  All  the  annual  and  quarterly  Con- 
ferences— all  the  societies  and  individuals  who  petitioned  against  the  election  of  a 
slave  holding  Bishop,  knew  the  whole  alarm  or  excitement  on  the  subject,  if  any,  had 
originated  North,  and  that  there  was  really,  not  only  no  danger,  but  no  possibility  of 
the  election  of  a  slave  holder,  should  Northern  men  be  opposed  to  the  election  of  one  ; 
and  the  Reply  maintains,  in  behalf  of  the  whole  North,  that  such  opposition  has  al- 
ways been  as  universal  as  notorious  in  every  period  of  the  Church's  history.  The  Re- 
ply must  intend  to  maintain  the  legal  ineligibility  of  a  slave  holder,'  or  else  that  the 
legal  abstract  right,  had  become  a  dead  letter  by  the  prevalence  of  Northern  opinion, 
adverse  to  law ;  and  in  either  case,  no  real  alarm  could  have  existed  North,  and  we  are 
perfectly  satisfied  none  did  exist,  and  that  the  whole  was  intended  for  effect.  The 
Northern  movement  was  merely  intended  to  present  an  array  of  bayonets  against  slave- 
ry, in  any  and  every  shape  and  aspect,  and  at  as  many  points  as  possible.  Antagonism 
and  aggression,  in  view  of  the  existing  order  of  things  affecting  slavery,  marked  all  the 
petitions  presented  at  the  last  General  Conference.  The  petitioners  present  no  actual 
ptrtQnal  grievances  under  which  they  labor,  as  creating  th«  right  of  petition.  The  right 


88 

exercised  is  a  right  ff  war,  and  the  declaration  accompanies  its  assertion,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  petitions  themselves.  The  Reply  claims  these  petitions  as  a  ground  of 
action  against  Bishop  Andrew,  he  had  sinned,  not  against  the  law  of  the  Church,  but 
against  Northern  "sentiment."  But  why  does  not  the  Reply  give  us  the  whole  truth 
in  the  premises,  so  that  what  they  report  might  be  explained  by  what  they  suppress? 
Why  not  frankly  inform  the  Church,  (for  they  knew  it  to  be  true)  that  a  much  larger 
number  of  petitioners  than  that  against  a  slave  holding  Bishop,  demanded  an  absolute 
separation  of  the  Church  from  all  slavery  and  slave  holders,  in  all  the  forms  of  the  one 
and  relations  of  the  oilier?  Why  did  not  the  Repliers  tell  the  Church,  what  they  well 
knew,  that  the  separation  of  the  Episcopacy  from  slavery  was  not  the  thousandth  part 
of  what  was  prayed  for?  Was  it  just  or  candid — did  it  comport  with  fair  dealing  not 
to  do  so?  Why  were  these  facts  separated,  "the  one  taken  and  the  other  left?"  And 
why  have  the  Northern  Advocates  pursued  a  similar  course?  So  far  as  the  petitions  are 
authority,  or  furnish  motive  for  action,  the  Majority  have  declared  themselves  ready  to 
unchurch,  the  who'.e  slave  holding  portion  of  the  South,  provided  it  is  stoutly  petitioned 
for.  If  such  petitions  may  be  a  cause  of  action  in  one  case,  why  not  in  another? 
Does  not  the  silence  of  the  Reply,  as  to  the  main  object  of  the  petitions,  furnish  the 
South  with  just  ground  of  alarm  as  to  their  future  safety?  Why,  too,  did  the  slavery 
committee,  to  whom  all  these  petitions  were  referred,  endorse  the  policy  of  such  a 
course,  by  the  omission  even  to  intimate,  that  there  existed  any  difficulty  in  granting 
all  that  abolition  prayed  for?  Why  such  a  studied  ominous  silence?  Were  they  not 
bound  to  report  upon  the  character  of  these  petitions?  Why  did  they  fail  to  do  so? 
Why  did  the  committee  decline  letting  it  be  known,  by  a  full  and  manly  report,  that 
these  petitions  could  only  be  granted  by  new  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  en- 
tirely subversive  of  existing  law?  Why  withhold  all  opinion  as  to  the  real  character 
of  the  petitions,  and  the  reasons  and  motives  of  their  presentation?  Why  was  all  they 
did  report,  against  the  South,  who  had  not  infringed  the  Discipline  in  any  respect,  and 
in  favor  of  the  North,  whose  movements  indicated  a  fixed  determination  not  to  submit 
toil. 

In  one  paragraph  the  Reply  tells  us,  that  the  vigilant  caution  of  the  Church  from  the 
very  institution  of  Episcopacy,  had  been  directed  to  the  great  object  of  securing  its 
purity,  by  the  exclusion  of  slavery  ;  and  in  another  it  is  indignantly  affirmed,  that  the 
virtuous  dead,  North  and  South,  had  never  dreamed  even  that  such  an  evil  as  slavery 
could  ever  find  its  way  into  the  Episcopacy.  The  logic  of  the  Reply  is,  that  an  evil 
never  thought  of  had  been  vigilantly  guarded  against  for  sixty  years.  If  the  last  state- 
ment be  true,  what  did  the  caution  in  question  amount  to,  and  of  what  force  is  the  as- 
sumption? If  the  watchful  apprehension  did  exist,  as  both  affirmed  and  denied,  why 
no.  prohibition  of  law,  as  the  Reply  would  show?  If  Bishops  are  excepted  in  the  ap- 
plication of  a  special  statute  relating  exclusively  to  the  ministry,  does  not  their  non- 
inclusion  by'  the  law,  upon  every  fair  principle  of  judicial  construction,  authorize  the 
relation,  for  sustaining  which,  Bishop  Andrew  was  punished?  The  Reply  assumes,  at 
least  by  concession,  that  no  disciplinary  provision — no  law  of  the  Church  covered  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew;  and  it  is  alleged  that  the  Conference  hence  treated  it  as  a 
"practical  difficulty,"  for  the  removal  of  which  they  were  compelled  to  "provide." 
The  Majority  thus  not  only  admit,  but  avow  their  action  to  be  extra-legal ;  and  if  so, 
was  it  not  by  logical  necessity,  extra-judicial?  But  to  return;  why  all  this  wide 
spread  epidemic  dismay  in  the  North?  There  is  no  legal  offence,  the  Majority  being 
judges,  and  as  a  law-abiding  portion  of  the  Church,  how  could  they  be  alarmed7  Un- 
less they  intended  going  beyond  the  provisions  of  law,  and  thus  drive  the  South  to  re- 


89 

sistance,  why  feel  uneasy?  Moreover,  if  the  Majority,  before  the  emergency  in  ques- 
tion gave  birth  to  so  many  rare  inventions,  regarded  themselves  as  having  the  un- 
doubted right  to  displace  n  Bishop  and  "give  his  Bishopric  to  another,"  even  without 
trial  or  enquiry,  what  ground  was  there  for  the  foreboding  apprehensions  of  the  Reply? 
Whether  we  look  at  the  North,  therefore,  before  or  after  the  knowledge  of  Bishop  An- 
drew's connection  with  slavery  transpired,  the  assumed  alarm  and  fidgety  preparations 
of  the  abolition  portion  of  the  Church,  prove  the  existence  of  purpose  and  pre-arrange- 
ment,  to  disturb  the  long  settled  question  of  slavery,  beyond  any  thing  that  had  pre- 
ceded. Such  purpose  has  been  since  avowed  by  the  proper  representatives  of  the  aboli- 
tion party,  and  how  far  seconded  and  sustained  by  the  anti-slavery  party,  is  sufficiently 
shown  in  other  parts  of  this  Review.  The  Reply  charges,  that  Bishop  Andrew  had 
deliberately  or  heedlessly  placed  himself  in  direct  and  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the 
sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the  Church.  In  relation  to  this,  we  enquire,  how  far  the 
law  of  the  Church  may  be  presumed  to  reflect  its  sentiments'?  It  can  never  be  made 
appear  that  Bishop  Andrew's  conduct  was  in  conflict  with  the  law,  and  if  in  conflict 
with  the  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the  Church,  then  the  law  is  no  index  of  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Majority,  and  is  in  fact  an  imposition  upon  the  credulity  of  the  law-abiding 
portion  of  the  Church.  And  further,  the  Reply  itself  shows,  that  without  either  de- 
liberation or  heedlessness,  without  any  will  or  choice  of  his  own,  Bishop  Andrew  had 
been  the  owner  of  slaves  for  many  years  before  his  late  marriage,  and  in  a  State  where 
emancipation  is  not  only  unlawful,  but  even  the  attempt  is  rendered  criminal  by  the 
laws.  Had  he  not  married,  the  result  in  every  material  aspect  of  the  subject  would 
have  been  the  same.  The  charge,  therefore,  is  without  foundation  in  the  facts  of  the 
case,  the  Repliers  themselves  being  witnesses. 

It  was  most  confidently  affirmed  in  the  case  of  Harding,  that  the  only  question  was, 
was  it  practicable  for  him  to  emancipate  his  slaves?  All  present  will  recollect,  that  in 
debate  this  was  given  as  (he  only  principle  upon  which  the  true  issue  was  to  hinge. 
The  bare  statement,  however,  to  say  nothing  of  the  absurdities  to  which  it  leads,  tor- 
tures and  misrepresents  both  the  spirit  and  language  of  the.  law.  This,  so  far  from 
being  the  only  question,  was  but  one  of  three  constituting  the  main  question.  1st. 
Was  it  at  all  practicable  for  Harding  to  emancipate  his,  or  rather  his  wife's  slaves? 
2d.  Could  this  be  done  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lived?  And, 
3d.  Being  in  fact  and  legally  practicable,  could  the  liberated  slaves  enjoy  freedom  in 
Maryland?  Grant  that  an  affirmative  answer  ought  to  be  given  to  the  first  of  these 
questions,  still,  as  such  an  answer  cannot  be  given  to  the  second  and  third,  the  majority 
either  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  or  of  the  General  Conference,  had  no  more  right, 
bij  the  laic  of  the  Discipline,  to  require  the  emancipation  of  Harding's  slaves,  than  they 
had  to  run  them  off  North,  by  way  of  giving  them  their  freedom,  that  is,  had  no 
right  at  all,  in  virtue  of  the  law.  That  they  uprightly  believed  they  had  such  right, 
at  the  time  of  action,  is  cheerfully  conceded  in  relation  to  both. 

Another  argument  in  Harding's  case  seems  to  have  found  great  favor  in  high  places, 
as  it  may  be  made,  it  was  no  doubt  thought,  to  answer  the  purpose  when  all  others  fail. 
It  is  assumed,  that  Harding  might  at  least  have  relinquished  his  own  right  of  property 
in  his  wife's  negroes,  and  so  freed  himself  From  slavery.  Beside,  lhat  legal  contingen- 
cies might  destroy  this  argument  altogether,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  such  a 
quasi  species  of  emancipation  is  utterly  unknown  to  the  law  of  Maryland,  and  there- 
fore not  legal,  and  of  course  could  not  in  any  way  have  affected  the  state  of  servitude 
in  which  the  negroes  would  still  be  left.  It  must  have  occurred  to  every  one  too,  that 
such  a  course  would  not  have  met  the  requirement  of  the  Discipline  at  all,  for  the  Dis- 

12 


90 

cipline  disavows  emancipation  as  a  requirement  of  law,  except  where  the  liberated 
slave  is  permitted  to  enjoy  freedom.  The  argument  in  question,  however,  sophistical 
as  disingenuous,  does  not  liberate  the  slave  in  fact  or  form,  in  whole  or  in  part;  free- 
dom, therefore,  in  any  sense,  is  out  of  the  question,  and  such  an  act  by  Harding,  would 
have  been  without  the  sanction  of  civil  or  ecclesiastical  law,  and  could  not  be  approv- 
ed, it  seems  to  us,  by  humanity  or  common  sense.  We  are  thus  driven  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  as  the  principal  conditions  of  the  requirement  by  the  law  of  the  Church. 
\vere  barred  by  the  civil  law  in  Maryland,  both  the  Baltimore  Conference  and  tbe  Gen- 
eral Conference  violated  the  letter  and  intention  of  the  Discipline,  in  exacting  emanci- 
pation of  Harding'.  The  recent  showy  and  confident  attempt  to  make  appear  that  the 
condition  respecting  tbe  enjoyment  of  freedom  by  the  liberated  slave,  does  not  apply  to 
traveling  preachers,  is  utterly  set  aside  and  overthrown  by  the  reasoning  and  construc- 
tion of  law  in  the  addresses,  both  of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  General  Conference,  ia 
1836  and  1S40,  and  especially  by  the  judicial  decision  of  the  latter  in  1840,  in  tbe 
Westmoreland  case,  and  cannot  be  urged  except  in  direct  conflict  boih  with  Episcopal 
and  General  Conference  authority.  The  argument  above,  therefore,  so  far  as  it  may 
turn  upon  this  item,  remains  unaffected  by  the  attempt  alluded  to,  and  shows  our  con- 
clusion to  be  fairly  made  out.  Harding  was  suspended  contrary  to  the  plain  letter  of 
the  law.  That  the  same  was  true  ia  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  we  have  seen  at 
length. 

The  bonds  imposed  upon  the  Bishop  bad  never  existed  before  they  were  prepared  for 
the  occasion.  The  Majority  sought  no  vindication  of  violated  law,  no  redress  of  injur- 
ed right.  The  true  cause  of  action,  was  the  rifeness  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery  opin- 
ion and  feeling  beyond  tbe  anticipation,  and  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  law.  It  was 
Northern  violation  of  law  which  rendered  the  attempted  degradation  of  Bishop  An- 
drew expedient.  The  Reply  labors  hard  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Church  had  al- 
ways declared  and  acted  upon  the  principle,  that  the  Episcopacy  or  a  Bishop  could  in 
DO  event,  be  allowed  to  have  connection  with  slavery,  and  yet  Dr.  Durbin,  in  debate 
stated,  as  did  others  in  substance,  ilin  passing  this  resolution  we  mate  a  clear  declaration 
against  the  connection  of  slavery  and  our  Episcopacy,  a  declaration  which  we  cannot 
avoid  making  if  we  would,  and  ought  not  if  we  could — a  declaration  which  the  world 
will  approve."  But  if  according  to  the  Reply,  the  declaration  was  as  old  as  the  Church, 
and  well  understood  by  every  body,  v.-hy  this  formality  in  re-declaring  it?  The  fact  is, 
it  was  a  declaration  of  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Majority,  not  only  in  open  conflict  with 
law,  but  in  utter  disregard  of  trust  and  confidence  created  by  recent  official  declarations 
to  the  contrary.  The  whole  movement  shows  the  party  was  aiming  at  the  introduction 
of  a  new  principle,  and  the  declaration  and  principle  being  both  new,  it  was  seen  that 
their  novelty,  not  less  than  inconsistency  with  existing  law,  would  surprise  and  star- 
tle, and  hence  the  necessity  of  explanation,  by  way  of  conciliating  the  Church,  in  view 
of  the  new  order  of  things  about  to  be  introduced.  The  real  difficulty  then,  existed  in 
others,  not  in  Bishop  Andrew,  and  for  the  wrong  of  others  he  was  called  to  suffer.  The 
Majority  evidently  acted  upon  the  maxim  that  the  law  was  behind  the  age.  and  that  it 
would  not  do  for  the  Church  to  be  in  the  same  category,  and  hence  the  rapjd  stride,  the 
furlong  in  a  breath,  with  which  they  moved  forward  to  tbe  accomplishment  of  their  pur- 
poses. It  may  not  be  amiss  to  enquire  why  the  South  are  charged  with  pro-si* very, 
without  being  charged  with  any  specific  violation  of  Jaw?  Is  it  intended  tossy  the 
law  is  pro-slavery?  Or,  if  not,  and  we  have  violated  the  law,  why  is  it  not  5 
wherein  and  after  what  manner.  We  do  not  so  treat  tbe  North.  We  show  in  what 
they  have  offended  and  departed  from  the  law  and  order  of  the  Church.  Our  char- 


91 

ges  are  specific,  and  the  proof  accompanies  them.  We  invoke  attention  and  chal- 
lenge scrutiny,  with  regard  to  the  one  and  the  other.  Are  the  scriptures  and  the  law 
of  the  Church  the  standard  by  which  we  are  judged]  If  they  are,  those  who  charge 
us  with  pro-slavery,  must  show  wherein  we  have  offended  against  these,  and  failing  to 
do  so,  no  other  proof  is  needed  to  show  the  injustice  and  malignity  of  the  charge.  In 
a  word,  the  wrong  inflicted  upon  the  South  by  the  falsehood  of  the  charge,  is  scarcely 
a  greater  outrage  than  the  defamatory  manner  in  which  it  has  been  presented. 

A  specimen  of  Northern  consistency  may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  Bishops  Soule 
and  Andrew  are  held  to  a  most  rigid  responsibility  for  alledged  disobedience  to  the  wish- 
es of  the  General  Conference,  in  that,  the  latter,  at  the  instance  of  the  former,  consent- 
ed to  assist  his  senior  colleague  in  the  labors  and  duties  of  his  late  Southern  tour,  in 
doing  which,  he  did  only  what  the  General  Conference  told  him  to  do  ;  that  is,  exercise 
his  own  judgment  as  to  the  propriety  of  performing  any  work  or  not.  For  these  acts 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  are  denounced  in  no  measured  terms,  and  it  is  more  than  in- 
timated that  exemplary  punishment  awaits  them  at  the  next  General  Conference. 
Meanwhile,  Northern  writers,  talkers,  declaimers,  editors.  Annual  and  Quarterly  Con- 
ferences, leaders'  meetings,  societies,  &c.,  are  found  impugning  the  wisdom  and  ar- 
raigning the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  every  form  of  undisguised  and  scorn- 
ful rebuke,  without  any  intimation  of  either  responsibility  or  punishment,  because,  for- 
sooth, it  is  found  practicable  to  hide  the  contempt  they  pour  upon  the  General  Confer- 
ence, ir  this  respect,  by  attempts  to  defend  it  in  others.  Why  liability  in  the  one  case, 
and  immunity  in  the  other?  The  action  of  the  Conference,  on  the  Plan  of  Division,  de- 
nounced by  the  North,  as  absurd  and  unauthorized,  was  united  in  by  every  member  of 
the  whole  body,  except  twelve,  taking  the  vote  on  the  3d  resolution  as  the  test  vote  of  the 
body.  That  approved  by  them  in  the  prosecution  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  a  strictly 
parly  movement,  on  the  slavery  question,  and  solemnly  protested  against  by  every  del- 
egate from  thirteen  Annual  Conferences,  beside  being  opposed  by  the  votes  of  one  half 
the  Delegation  from  the  Baltimore  Conference,  two  thirds  of  the  Philadelphia  Delega- 
tion, a  majority  of  that  from  Illinois,  with  several  others  from  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Rock  River.  Fifteen  Annual  Conferences  condemned  the  action 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  ;  the  vote  of  one  was  neutralized  by  an  equal  division, 
and  five  divided  unequally.  And  the  result  is,  upon  this  most  difficult  and  delicate 
question,  the  Annual  Conferences  confederated  in  the  General  Conference,  divided  six- 
teen to  fifteen,  the  North  having  a  majority  of  one.  It  is  true  the  Delegation  from  Tex- 
as, two  in  number,  divided,  as  did  that  of  Baltimore  ;  but  it  was  admitted  by  the  Dele- 
gate who  voted  with  the  North,  that  in  doing  so  he  did  not  represent  any  portion  of  tho 
Texas  Conference.  The  Annual  Conferences,  therefore,  all  absolutely  equal  in  their 
rights,  divided  as  above,  and  those  who  are  now  attempting  to  sustain  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference,  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  know  that  fifteen  Annual  Conferences 
disapj>roved  it,  while  the  action,  adopting  the  Plan  of  Separation,  about  which  we  have 
so  much  pragmatic  dissent  and  turbulent  abuse,  was  not  opposed  by  a  single  Annual 
Conference,  and  by  only  twelve  scattering  votes  of  individuals  !  And  yet  we  are  told, 
respect  for  the  General  Conference,  as  the  Representative  Council  of  the  Church,  com- 
pels the  conduct  we  have  under  notice  !  The  conduct  of  a  bare,  the  leanest  possible  ma- 
jority, counting  by  Conferences,  is  defended  with  all  imaginable  zeal  and  ability,  as  the 
voice  and  action  of  the  Church,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  almost  unanimous  action  of 
the  whole  body,  providing  for  a  peaceable  "division  of  the  Church,"  on  "constitution- 
al" principles,  is  denounced  and  libelled  as  the  work  of  "divisionists" — the  project  of 
a  "Southern  clique." 


92 

Since  May  last,  sixteen  Annual  Conferences  have  officially  endorsed  the  doctrine  and 
positions  of  the  Declaration  and  Protest,  without  qualification  or  exception,  and  yet, 
ever  and  anon,  a  knot  or  club  of  Northern  abolitionists  or  anti-slavery  agitators,  num- 
bering scarcely  as  many  individuals,  are  permitted,  in  the  papers  of  the  Church,  to 
ban  and  defame  them  as  a  "clique"  of  schismatic  "separatists."  If  there  b<?  any  vir- 
tue which  can  suffer  such  wrong,  such  wantonness  of  injury,  without  resentment,  the 
South  certainly  stands  in  need  of  it.  Would  we  had  the  patience  and  meekness  of  the 
sainted  John,  who,  under  similar  treatment,  was  content  to  say,  leaving  the  quiet  max- 
im to  explain  itself,  "no  He  is  of  the  truth."  But  to  return.  We  wish  to  know,  (to 
restrict  the  general  view,  here  taken,  to  a  single  point,)  why  Bishops  Soule  and  An- 
drew are  to  be  punished  for  supposed  disobedience  to  a  simple  wish  of  the  Majority,  ex- 
plained by  themselves,  to  mean  anything  or  nothing,  as  Bishop  Andrew  might  happen 
to  understand  it,  or  they  find  it  convenient  to  decide,  while  Editors  and  others,  equally 
the  Agents  of  the  Conference,  are  promised  not  only  impunity,  but  even  reward,  in  re- 
sisting an  express  and  binding  "regulation"  of  the  General  Conference,  having  all  the 
force  of  law?  We  risk  the  opinion,  that  no  General  Conference,  having  any  respect 
for  the  decencies,  to  say  nothing  of  the  graver  sanctities  of  judicial  procedure,  will  ev- 
er attempt  to  arraign  Bishops  Andrew  and  Soule  for  practical  dissent  from  its  wishes, 
without,  at  the  same  time,  arraigning  the  whole  corps  of  Editorial  and  other  Censors, 
who  have  been  in  such  officious  haste  to  inform  the  Church  and  public,  that  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  of  1844  had  so  damaged  the  interests  of  the  Church,  that  their  inter- 
ference, in  contravention  of  its  action,  and  contempt  of  its  authority,  became  necessa- 
ry, to  save  the  Church  from  ruin !  We  have  not  been  unmindful  of  what  will  be  re- 
torted here,  that  we  of  the  South  resisted  the  same  authority,  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew.  This  is  admitted  as  ostensibly  true,  but  the  reader  who  travels  over  the 
ground  of  this  discussion  with  us,  cannot  help  perceiving,  with  the  facts  and  evidence 
before  him,  how  utterly  unresembling  are  the  positions  of  the  parties,  and  how  impos- 
sible it  is  to  compare  them,  as  standing  in  anything  like  the  same  relation  to  law  and 
right.  We  resisted  the  disturbance,  by  adverse  Northern  opinion  and  action,  of  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  rights  and  relations,  established  both  by  the  law  of  the  land  and  of 
the  Church,  and  the  possession  of  which  had  been  formally  guarantied  to  us  by  both. 
They  resist  the  will  of  the  Majority  without  any  plea  of  law,  or  show  of  right,  be- 
yond that  of  private  judgment.  They  not  only  nullify  law,  shown  not  to  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  constitution,  but  they  destroy  the  Legislature  itself,  by  the  virtual,  but 
plain  declaration,  that  no  law  of  the  General  Conference  can  bind  the  Church  without 
its  formal  previous  consent.  In  our  case,  the  reasons  of  law  override  its  forms.  The 
occasion  accredits  the  right  of  resistance,  and  we  vindicate  its  assertion  by  the  emer- 
gency of  the  circumstances  under  which  we  act,  and  hence  the  difference,  both  as  to 
the  moral  and  the  constitutional  grounds  of  action. 

In  the  instance  of  the  two  great  points  upon  which  the  North  and  South  divide,  Slave- 
ry and  Episcopacy,  the  Reply,  in  the  first  case,  denies  to  Bishops  the  character  of  Trav- 
eling Preachers  proper ;  and,  in  the  second,  insists  they  are  merely  such,  with  the  ad- 
dition of  being  tenants  at  will,  as  officers  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  sage  induction  by  which  the  Manifesto  attempts  to  show  that  the  Protest  main- 
tains the  General  Conference  to  be  a  creature  of  the  Episcopacy,  is  in  keeping  with  its 
general  claim  to  fairness  of  argumentation.  It  is  plainly  the  purpose  of  the  Protest  to 
show,  that  because,  according  to  law,  we  cannot  have  Annual  Conferences,  (and  by  con- 
sequence no  General  Conference,  unless  in  extreme  cases,)  independently  of  the  Epis- 
copacy, it  does  not,  therefore,  follow,  that  the  General  Conference  is  the  creature  of 


93 

the  Episcopacy,  although  there  is  quite  as  good  reason  for  assuming  it,  as  there  is  for 
assuming  the  Episcopacy  to  be  a  mere  creature  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  Reply,  in  pressing  upon  our  notice  the  uniform  repugnance  to  slavery,  in  the 
high  places  of  the  Church,  has  signally  failed  in  giving  us  the  true  and  proper  rela- 
tions of  "Methodism  and  Slavery,"  and  exhibits  a  sad  paucity  of  proof  with  regard  to 
the  manifestation  of  the  kind  of  repugnance  so  very  confidently  assumed.  Beside  the 
many  unmanageable  facts  and  perplexing  inferences  already  noticed,  tending  to  discred- 
it the  ultraism  of  the  Reply  in  this  respect,  there  are  other  items  of  no  mean  signifi- 
cance, which  ought  at  least  to  be  explained.  The  General  Conference  of  1828  selected, 
with  great  unanimity,  a  Southern  slave  holder  as  their  Representative  to  the  British 
Conference.  It  is  well  known,  too,  that  at  the  General  Conference,  in  1832,  more  than 
forty  Northern  votes  were  given  for  a  Southern  slave  holder  as  Bishop,  and  given  too, 
against  a  Southern  man,  proposed  for  the  same  office,  who  was  not  a  slave  holder. 
These,  and  kindred  facts,  all  go  to  show,  that  until  the  recent  marriage  of  abolition 
and  anti-slavery,  for  grave  family  reasons,  (a  union  of  effort  for  particular  purposes, 
as  elsewhere  seen,)  the  Church  has  been  in  the  habit  of  selecting  men  for  office,  and 
appointments  of  trust,  without  reference  to  their  connection  with  slavery,  it  being  well 
understood  that  no  slavery  was  found  in  the  Traveling  Ministry,  except  under  circum- 
stances where,  according  to  law,  no  forfeiture  of  right  could  ensue.  All  this,  howev- 
er, is  utterly  misunderstood  or  misrepresented  by  the  Reply.  That  Jesse  Lee  was  the 
owner  of  slaves,  when  designated  by  Bishop  Asbury  for  the  office  of  Bishop,  and  came 
within  a  single  vote  of  being  elected  by  the  General  Conference,  is,  I  am  informed,  sus- 
ceptible of  proof.  It  is  also  affirmed  that  he  was  such,  when,  at  an  earlier  day,  he 
planted  Methodism  in  New  England.  Bishop  McKendree  never  attempted  to  disguise 
his  solicitude  for  the  election  of  Thomas  Logan  Douglass  as  Bishop,  although  he  knew 
him  to  be  an  extensive  slave  holder,  in  a  State  where  emancipation  was  impracticable. 
Southern  men,  holding  slaves,  have,  at  different  times,  been  supported  for  the  Episco- 
pacy, by  Northern  votes,  ever  since  the  organization  of  the  Church. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Reply  repels  the  charge  of  "extra -judicial"  proceedings 
against  Bishop  Andrew,  will  be  recollected  by  all.  The  charge  is,  that  Bishop  An- 
drew was  proceeded  against  "out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  legal  procedure,"  such  be- 
ing the  common  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  term ;  and  the  Reply,  after  denying  the 
charge  in  various  forms,  takes  great  pains  to  show  why  the  Bishop  could  not  be  dealt 
with  according  to  law,  and  why  it  was  necessary  to  meet  the  emergency  "out  of  the 
ordinary  course  of  legal  procedure."  The  gross  fallacy  of  the  pretension,  that  the 
General  Conference  has  the  right  to  do  anything  not  expressly  forbidden,  publishes  its 
own  refutation  the  moment  it  is  looked  at.  So  soon  as  we  apply  it  to  the  division  of 
General  Conference  jurisdiction,  this  argument  of  the  Majority  is,  by  themselves,  de- 
nied as  futile.  While  Bishop  Andrew  is  on  the  tapis,  the  "Croton  river"  overflows  its 
banks,  but  the  moment  division  comes  up,  it  is  dried  in  all  its  streams.  When  Episco- 
pacy is  in  the  way,  the  General  Conference  has  all  power,  even  the  sovereign  lawlessness 
claimed  for  it  by  Bishop  Hamline  ;  but  whenever  it  is  shown  that  such  supremacy  must 
give  to  the  body  claiming  it,  the  right  to  divide  the  general  jurisdiction  of  the  Church, 
we  are  instantly  informed,  as  we  have  been  in  twenty  different  shapes,  that  this  right 
belongs  not  to  the  Traveling  Ministry,  but  the  people— the  Laity.  The  reader,  by  ad- 
verting to  our  reasoning  elsewhere,  will  perceive  at  once,  that  in  theory,  this  is  a  rev- 
olution in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  depriving  the 
Traveling  Ministry  of  rights  and  powers  always  claimed  by  them,  and  investing  them 
in  the  people,  where  it  has  always  been  obstinately  contended  they  do  not  belong,  and 


by  whom  ihey  cannot  be  claimed,  except  upon  the  principles  of  a  revolutionary  radi- 
calism. This  concession  of  the  General  Conference  Press,  "by  authority,"  for  tempo- 
rary party  purposes,  may  be  found  to  contain  the  seeds,  and  furnish  the  type  of  a  des- 
tiny not  dreamed  of  in  the  philosophy  of  the  Majority.  What  is  conceded  now,  and  in 
this  case,  may  be  claimed  hereafter,  and  acted  upon  in  others.  The  argument  is  a  Del- 
phian blade,  cutting  more  ways  than  one.  When  we  come  to  apply  it,  the  General 
Conference  is  as  much  the  creature  of  the  people  as  a  Bishop  is  the  creature  and  facto- 
tum of  that  body. 

The  strangely  doubtful — the  equivoque  position  in  which  the  resolution  of  Finley, 
with  the  subsequent  explanation,  left  Bishop  Andrew,  made  in  every  practical  sense, 
the  mere  discretion — the  will  of  Bishop  Andrew,  the  sole  law  of  determination,  both 
with  regard  to  the  moral  character  of  his  conduct  and  the  propriety  of  exercising  or  de- 
clining to  do  so,  the  functions  of  his  office.  And  yet  for  adopting  the  rule  of  action 
prescribed  by  the  Majority,  the  Bishop  is  to  be  further  punished.  The  Bishops  inform- 
ed the  Conference,  by  way  of  asking  for  "official  information,"  that  in  their  judgment 
they  had  "no  discretion  to  decide"  upon  even  the  kind  of  relation  Bishop  Andrew  sus- 
tained to  the  Church.  The  Conference  tell  them  they  are  right,  they  have  no  discretion 
in  the  case.  The  Conference  declare  all  is  confided  to  the  discretion  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
and  that  what  he  may  resolve  upon  is  the  law  of  the  General  Conference,  "whether  in 
any"— he  may  work  or  let  it  alone,  "and  if  any  in  what  work" — he  may  choose  any 
work  he  prefers— "be  employed,"  sees  fit  to  occupy  himself,  (for  no  directions  are  given 
the  Bishops,)  "is  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action,  in  relation  to  the  pre- 
vious action  of  this  Conference  in  his  case."  Should  Bishop  Andrew  decide  he  is  sus- 
pended, he  may  be  expected  to  decide  against  taking  work,  although  the  Conference  leaves 
him  at  liberty  to  work,  should  he  see  proper.  Should  his  "decision"  be  that  the  Con- 
ference has  merely  advised  him,  and  left  him  to  do  as  he  may  think  best,  still  the  whole 
matter  is  left  to  himself,  and  the  necessary  alternative  construction  is,  that  the  decision 
of  Bishop  Andrew  is  the  law  of  the  General  Conference.  And  the  question  now  arises, 
can  the  General  Conference,  with  any  show  of  right,  punish  Bishop  Andrew  for  doing 
what  they  expressly  authorized  him  to  do — that  is,  work  or  let  it  alone,  at  his  own  dis- 
cretion. Can  he  be  punished  for  obeying  their  own  law?  Or  rather,  was  not  the  law 
such,  (the  Bishop's  own  will,)  as  to  render  disobedience  impossible!  And  what  then  is 
he  to  be  punished  for?  A  writer  in  the  Western  Advocate,  who  strikes  but  hides  the 
hand,  informs  us  the  next  General  Conference  will  let  us  know  what  he  is  to  be  punished 
for.  This  however,  can  hardly  be.  Wheu  the  manifesto  was  presented  to  the  Confer- 
ence, it  contained  a  very  significant  menace  to  this  effect,  but  the  Majority  refused  to 
sanction  the  amenability  of  Bishop  Andrew  in  this  respect,  as  assumed  by  Drs.  Durbin, 
Peck,  and  Elliott,  and  the  latter  accordingly  proceeded  to  strike  it  out.  This  was  after 
the  report  had  been  made  and  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Conference.  Other  items 
too,  were  stricken  out  by  Dr.  Durbin,  some  with  and  some  without  the  consent  of  the 
committee  or  Conference.  That  this  was  not  done,  as  has  been  alledged,  to  oblige  the 
South,  is  perfectly  obvious,  for  many  other  things  pointed  out  and  animadverted  upon 
as  particularly  objectionable,  were  not  stricken  out,  and  it  is  plain  those  items  only  were 
expunged,  which  it  was  seen  were  indefensible  and  likely  to  discredit  the  argument  and 
cause  of  the  Majority. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  unfair  use  whicli  has  been  made  of 
the  fact  that  Southern  men,  upon  a  motion  from  the  North,  voted  to  have  the  Reply  re- 
corded upon  the  Journal  and  printed.  The  motive  of  Southern  men  in  doing  so,  will 
bo  perceived  by  all.  Th  Majority  had  ordered  tkeir  explanation  of  the  action  had  in 


95 

Bishop  Andrew's  case,  in  the  shape  of  an  extended  report  by  distinguished  leaders  of 
the  party,  but  were  unwilling  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  adopting1  it.  The  South 
challenged  the  Majority  to  accredit  the  report,  either  by  its  adoption  or  by  attaching 
their  signatures  to  it.  They  refused  to  do  either.  Wishing  to  have  ready  access  to  it, 
and  have  the  Church  made  acquainted  with  it,  although  notoriously  disapproving  its 
contents,  several  Southern  men  voted  to  record  and  print  it,  as  a  summary  of  the  doc- 
trines and  opinions  of  the  Majority,  respecting  slavery  and  Episcopacy,  which  the  South 
believes  to  be  alike  subversive  of  the  unity  and  General  super intendency  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church. 

The  Reply  insists  that  the  readiness  and  unanimity  with  which  the  Majority  consent- 
ed to  the  plan  of  separation,  is  a  practical  refutation  of  the  charge  of  the  Protest,  that 
the  Minority  had  been  subjected  to  the  party  control  of  a  dominant  majority.  Suppose 
we  look  at  later  demonstrations  by  the  North.  What  kind  of  treatment  has  the  South 
received  from  the  great  mouth  piece,  the  government  organ  of  the  Northern  party,  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  to  say  nothing  of  others'?  We  are  privately  assured 
it  is  true,  from  different  sources,  that  it  misrepresents  both  Northern  opinion  and  feel- 
ing, as  certainly  and  even  offensively,  as  all  know  it  to  have  misrepresented  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  the  South  ;  still  it  speaks  for  the  Church  North,  and  will,  no  doubt, 
continue  to  do  so.  The  perfect  silence  of  book  agents,  book  committees  and  the  North- 
ern Conferences,  must,  of  course,  be  understood  as  their  endorsement  of  its  policy  and 
tactics,  and  they  are  accordingly  responsible,  not  for  every  thing  the  paper  may  contain, 
but  for  its  main  position  and  obvious  purpose  in  this  controversy,  as  authorized  to 
speak/or  the  Church,  and  it  requires  no  great  discernment  to  see,  that  important  results 
may  follow  from  the  fact,  that  the  original  position  of  the  Majority  has  been  denied  and 
reversed,  and  its  public  solemn  obligations  scorned  and  cancelled  by  its  official  organ, 
thus  rendering  it  more  imperiously  necessary  than  before,  that  the  Southern  Conferen- 
ces be  independent  of  the  Northern,  beside  the  proof  it  furnishes  of  the  original  neces- 
sity of  division.  A  single  fact  noticed  elsewhere,  and  that  can  never  be  forgotten  by 
the  South,  speaks  volumes  on  this  subject.  Papers  published  under  the  authority  of 
the  General  Conference,  have  stated  distinctly  and  repeatedly,  in  the  gravest  forms, 
that  the  only  reason  why  the  South  seeks  a  separate  organization,  is  because  they  insist 
on  having  a  slave  holding  Bishop,  and  cannot  be  gratified  while  in  union  with  the  North. 
We  have  shown  this  statement  to  be  as  notoriously  false  in  fact,  as  it  is  injurious  in 
its  purpose  and  effect.  The  whole  history  of  the  difficulty  publishes  its  want  of  truth 
not  less  than  the  malevolence  of  its  origin,  and  the  express  language  of  the  General 
Conference  is  falsified  without  disguise,  by  the  imputation.  The  Conference  in  provi- 
ding for  separation,  avowedly  acted  in  view  of  "various  reasons  enumerated"  in  the 
declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  the  only  reason  of  our  Editors  is  not  even 
one,  of  the  several  alluded  to,  in  any  sense  or  shape  whatever.  The  fact  is,  the  Reply 
mistook  both  the  character  and  temper  of  the  North  on  this  whole  subject,  unless  both 
are  miserably  misrepresented  by  the  official  press.  • 

Those  men  who  believe  all  slave  holding  to  be  morally  criminal,  and  are  resolved  to 
rid  the  Church  of  all  slavery  in  every  respect,  are  infinitely  consistent  compared  with 
those  who  seem  to  think  slavery  involves  very  little  difficulty  on  moral  grounds,  but  is 
most  disastrously  evil  when  it  becomes  mixed  up  with  the  difficult  tactics  of  sectional 
interest  and  party  expediency.  The  fact  is,  to  be  at  all  consistent,  Methodism  in  all  the 
non-slave  holding  Conferences,  must  occupy  the  old  common  ground  of  the  legal  tolera- 
tion of  slavery  in  all  grades  of  the  ministry,  in  States  whose  laws  do  not  allow  the 
emancipation  and  subsequent  freedom  of  the  slave,  or  must  take  ntw  ground,  and  ex- 


:'-;•/   , 


elude  it  from  the  ministry,  and  by  consequence,  as  we  think,  from  the  membership  alto- 
gether. The  Church  South  can  admit  of  no  distinction— no  inequality  of  right  in  the 
ministry,  without  disreputation  and  overthrow.  Where  emancipation  is  practicable 
without  evading  or  violating  civil  law,  and  the  freed  slave  is  allowed  to  enjoy  freedom 
in  the  State  of  his  domicil.  should  Southern  ministers  fail  to  emancipate,  let  them  bo 
punished.  But  where  this  is  not  the  case,  and  while  the  law  of  the  Church  remains  as 
it  is,  we  will  not  submit  to  punishment  of  any  kind,  and  it  need  not  be  expected  of  us. 
The  old  compromise,  as  we  have  understood  it,  is  the  only  ground  upon  which  we  can 
stand  in  the  South,  and  by  how  far  we  credit  Northern  assurances  and  defer  to  South- 
ern opinion,  it  is  unlikely  we  shall  ever  occupy  that  ground  again.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, geographical  division,  (as  to  general  jurisdiction.)  with  the  exceptions  re- 
cognized by  (he  General  Conference  plan  of  separation,  seems  to  be  the  only  pacific 
remedy.  For  this  the  South,  with  a  greatly  less  number  of  exceptions  than  was  ex- 
pected, is  ready  ;  and  should  the  North,  under  the  influence  of  counsels,  adverse  to  the 
pledge  of  the  General  Conference,  refuse  to  fulfil  its  contract,  the  question  will  be  left 
to  work  out  its  solution  in  a  different  way,  uninfluenced  by  Editors  or  correspondents, 
North  or  South.  We  write  and  talk  of  union,  as  if  it  were  matter  of  choice  by  the  par- 
ties to  have  it  by  mere  dint  of  proclamation.  But  where  is  that  of  which  so  much 
is  written  and  spoken,  to  so  little  purpose?  Soberly,  where  is  our  union?  "The  North 
saith,  it  is  not  in  me,  and  the  South,  it  is  not  in  me!"  Split  assunder  by  a  moral  con- 
vulsion despite  ourselves — involuntarily  sundered  by  the  throes  of  an  earthquake — 
already  apart  and  each  asking  what  the  other  cannot  yield— clinging  to  opposing  prin- 
ciples vital  to  existence,  as  the  parties  recede  from  each  other;  the  question  is,  how 
may  the  least  evil  result  from  what  has  taken  place?  No  longer  one,  and  finding  it 
impossible  to  agree,  is  there  any  reason  why  we  should  destroy  one  another,  by  way  of 
proof  that  we  ought  not  to  have  been  separated?  If  the  ends  for  which  we  came  to- 
gether, can  only  be  accomplished  by  separation,  and  this  we  have  solemnly  declared  as 
it  regards  the  South,  and  the  truth  of  the  declaration  is  increased  by  every  day's  expe- 
rience, what  must  be  the  suggestions  of  both  duty  and  interest?  And  what  must  be  the 
inevitable  inference  as  lo  constitutional  competency  to  divide  the  general  jurisdiction  of 
the  Church,  in  an  emergency  of  this  kind?  On  what  grounds  is  it  doubted?  With 
what  show  of  reason  or  force  of  argument  can  it  be  questioned? 

The  proposed  division,  so  far  from  exciting  political  alarm  and  alienation  in  the  South 
with  regard  to  the  North,  will  tend  directly  to  prevent  the  one  and  the  other.  Five 
thousand  ministers  and  five  hundred  thousand  members  South,  tamely  submitting  to 
Northern  encroachment  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  would  immediately  and  beyond  doubt 
endanger  the  union  of  the  States,  but  when  it  is  seen  that  the  rapidly  increasing  thous- 
ands of  Southern  Methodi«ts,  will  not  submit  to  this,  all  cause  of  alarm  in  connection 
with  the  Church,  is  removed  at  once.  If  while  the  civil  condition  and  relations  of  the 
South  are'constantly  assailed  by  the  Church  North,  Southern  Methodists  had  not  re- 
sisted, but  allowed  the  interference 'to  proceed  from  one  extreme  to  another,  the  Metho- 
dists being  largely  the  most  numerous  denomination  in  the  South,  there  would  have 
been  just  reason,  perhaps,  to  fear  that  the  South  might  be  driven  to  means  of  self  de- 
fence, endangering  the  harmony  if  not  union  of  the  confederacy.  Already,  however, 
the  resistance  of  the  Southern  Church  has  given  a  tone  of  confidence  to  Southern  feel- 
ing, greatly  lessening  the  danger  in  question.  It  is  not  unlikely,  from  the  present 
signs  of  the  times,  and  we  accordingly  predict,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
South,  will  soon  be  compelled  to  adopt  the  course  we  have,  and  that  these  examples  will 
be  followed  by  the  Baptist  Church,  and  at  a  later  period  by  other  Churches,  in  a  similar 


97 

separation.     If  our  conjectures  should  be  verified,  we  entertain  no  doubt  at  all  that  the 
effect  will  be  eminently  favorable  to  the  interest  of  the  National  Union.     Political  abo- 
litionism has  been  principally  sustained  in  the  North,   by  religious  fanatacism  and  for- 
eign interference,  and  the  latter  has  been  brought  to  bear  extensively,  as  all    know, 
through  the  various  Churches  of  the  United  States.     Should,  however,   the  principal 
Churches  South,  claim  separate  jurisdiction,  as  it  regards  this  question,  it  will  deprive 
agitation  at  once  of  its  principal  means  and  appliances,  and  a  less  excited  and  exaspera- 
ted state  of  feeling  North  and  South,  will  naturally  exert  an  influence  upon  public  opin- 
ion and  sentiment,  highly  conservative  in  relation  to  the  great  interests  of  our  common 
country.     The  abolition  influence  in  the  United  States,  has  been  inconceivably  enhanc- 
ed by  the  encouragement  and  countenance  of  England  and  the  influx  of  foreigners  from, 
every  part  of  Europe.     A  late  English  writer  on  this  subject  says,  "that  England  has 
taken  up  the  trade  of  propagandism  is  admitted  by  our  rulers  themselves."     Another 
affirms  that  it  was  for  this  specific  object  she  "confiscated  property  to  the  amount  of 
40,000,000  sterling  in  the  West  Indies,"  which  did  not,  in  any  sense,  belong  to  the 
government,  and  which  having  been  accumulated  under  the  full  and  explicit  sanction  of 
British  law,  she  could  not  deprive  her  subjects  of  without  a  plain  violation  of  the  rights 
of  property.     Dr.    Bangs,  speaking  of  the  Northern  agitation  of  "slavery  and  aboli- 
tionism," says,  "this  spirit  was  powerfully  excited  by  agents  sent  out  from  England  for 
the  express  purpose  of  lecturing  us  on  the  evils  of  slavery.     These  heedless  and  enthu- 
siastic lecturers,  aroused  a  spirit  of  resistance  to  their  measures  and  proceedings,  which 
it  was  not  easy  to  control.     This  interference  of  foreigners  with  our  domestic  relations, 
was  considered  by  the  more  judicious  portion  of  the  community,  as  highly  reprehensi- 
ble and  worthy  of  severe  rebuke  and  remonstrance."     That  an   immense   mass  of  the 
American  people  are  opposed  to  slavery,  in  principle  and  feeling,  is  not  disputed,  and 
no  where  regretted  or  complained  of  in  the  South.    But  it  is  true  at  the  same  time,  and 
susceptible  of  the  clearest  historical  proof,  that  the  whole  abolition  and  anti-slavery 
movement  in  the  United  States,  for  the  last  twelve  years,  has  been  to  a  very  great  ex- 
tent and- American  and  essentially  of  Joreign  origin.     The  whole  system  is  largely  in- 
debted to  foreign  influence,  both  as  it  regards  iis  projection  and  impulse.     Nor  is  this 
true  merely  in  relation  to  the  organized  efforts  of  the   anti-slavery  and  abolition  mis- 
sion, as  such,  but  the  principle  involved  and  the  fact  we  assume  have  developed  them- 
selves and  displayed  their  relations  and  affinities,  in  various  forms  of  political,   social, 
and  moral  mischief.     Public  attention  and  concern  have  been  for  years  attracted  to  the 
evil  as  one  of  no  common  magnitude.     Thousands  who  do  not  deem  it  prudent  to  speak 
or  act,  feel  that  the  curse  is  in  our  midst — that  the  elements  of  social  degeneration  and 
national  decay,  are  at  work,  with  an  energy  and  effectiveness  calling  loudly  for  the  in- 
terposition of  public  virtue  and  political  foresight.     The  subject  is  too  deeply  painful 
and  humiliating  to  be  enlarged  upon. 

Look  at  the  annual  foreign  accessions  to  our  population — look  at  the  lawless  disregard 
of  restraint  among  them — a  levelling  system  of  agrarianism  rapidly  extending  in  every 
direction  and  fearfully  increasing  in  strength  and  activity.  Even  now  they  constitute 
in  various  places,  formidable  castes  and  parties,  caring  for  nothing  but  to  secure  their 
own  petty  personal  interests,  and  to  promote  the  reckless  aims  of  the  unprincipled  de- 
magogues by  whom  they  are  duped  and  demoralized.  This  class  of  foreigners  rarely 
crowd  together  in  the  South  in  masses  sufficiently  large  to  affect  the  interests  of  society. 
The  long  established  system  of  slave  labor — the  kinds  and  methods  of  production,  and 
the  general  habits  of  society,  with  other  causes,  deter  them.  -They  seek  the  frea  States 
of  the  North,  and  are  found  there  as  ten  to  one,  if  not  in  greater  disproportion,  com- 

13 


98 

pared  witli  the  South.  Foreign  influence  in  this  way,  has  been  most  unfairly  brought 
to  bear  in  the  North,  upon  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  South.  For  more  than  half  a 
century,  without  any  knowledge  of  our  political  institutions  and  .  civil  relations,  the 
slaves  of  other  nations,  have  been  the  legislators  of  this.  Legionary  hordes  are  annually 
emptied  out  of  Europe,  in  the  shape  of  ignorant,  needy,  and  disorderly  paupers,  fugi- 
tives, and  convicts,  every  where  crowding  the  cities  and  districts  of  the  North,  officious- 
ly meddling  with  both  the  polity  and  police  of  the  country,  and  rapidly  sapping  the 
foundations  of  its  noblest  institutions.  Placed  on  their  arrival,  in  direct  association 
with  the  lowest  and  most  depraved  part  of  our  own  population,  and  subjected  but  too 
generally  to  the  drill  of  debased  and  lawless  leaders,  the  Botany  Bay  of  European  out- 
casts on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  is  allowed  to  give  character,  not  only  to  the  law  and  ma- 
gistracy, but  even  to  the  manners  and  morals  of  the  country.  We  except  of  course, 
from  the  application  of  these  remarks,  and  we  do  it  with  the  greatest  pleasure,  all  those 
citizens  of  the  United  States  from  foreign  countries,  many  and  respectable,  who  practi- 
cally discourage  and  discountenance  the  growing  evil  of  which  we  complain  ;  all  others 
we  include  as  accessary  to  the  outrage,  and  inflicting  irreparable  injury  upon  the  char- 
acter and  hopes  of  the  country. 

Among  the  rare  morceaux  of  the  Reply  claiming  attention,  we  may  notice  the  attempt 
to  make  the  impression  that  the  Protest  denies  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  really  and  le- 
gally connected  with  slavery.  The  Protest  contains  no  such  denial — no  intimation  of 
the  kind,  and  the  statement  is  negatived  both  by  the  language  and  reasoning  in  every 
part  of  the  document.  The  Reply  also  contains  the  unauthorized  representation,  that 
the  Protest  assumes  the  ecclesiastical  compact  existing  between  the  North  and  South 
to  have  been  a  constitutional  arrangement  in  form,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  altered  or 
revoked  without  the  removal  of  constitutional  restrictions.  There  is  no  such  idea  in 
the  Protest.  The  general  law  of  slavery,  as  enacted  at  different  times,  is  assumed,  as 
we  have  proved  it  to  be,  a  compromise  arrangement,  in  the  shape  of  a  common  law 
agreed  upon  by  the  parties,  North  and  South,  and  the  Protest  maintains  that  the  Ma- 
jority of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  disregarding  the  law,  were  not  merely  charg- 
able  with  its  violation,  but  also  with  a  breach  of  good  faith  toward  the  South.  There 
is  no  allusion  to  the  removal  of  constitutional  restrictions.  What  the  Protest  meant  by 
charging  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  is  fully  explained  and  supported  in  another 
part  of  this  Review.  So  far  as  the  constitution  is  directly  applicable  to  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  he  bought  or  sold  with  intention  to  "enslave," 
the  constitution,  as  explained  in  the  10th  section,  not  only  protects  him  in  his  connec- 
tion with  slavery,  but  must  be  disregarded  and  violated  in  any  attempt  to  disturb  him. 
The  Reply  attempts  to  prove  Bishop  Andrew  blame  worthy,  because  a  Bishop  is  "allow- 
ed to  live  where  he  pleases,"  and  it  seems  it  would  have  pleased  the  Repliers  and  those 
they  represent,  had  Bishop  Andrew  removed  North,  and  so  freed  himself  from  slavery 
by  expatriation.  It  so  happens,  however,  that  Bishop  Andrew  "pleases"  to  live  in 
Georgia,  where  he  resided  at  the  time  of  his  election,  and  the  Discipline,  as  we  have 
seen,  takes  from  the  General  Conference  any  right  to  disturb  him  in  his  connection 
with  slavery,  in  that  State.  And  as  a  Bishop  is  kindly  '-allowed  to  live  where  he 
pleases,"  no  blame  can  possibly  attach  to  Bishop  Andrew  for  not  removing  North. 

Among  other  things  found  in  the  Protest  by  the  Reply,  which  happen  not  to  be  there, 
is  "the  virtual  deposition  of  several  Bishops,  by  a  worse  than  extra-judicial  process." 
What  was  there,  but  not  seen,  it  would  seem  by  the  authors  of  the  Reply  is,  that  Bish- 
ops violating  the  compact,  the  compromise  law  of  slavery,  themselves,  or  submitting 
without  fwroper  remonstrance  to  its  violation  by  others,  cannot  be  acceptable  in  the 


99 

South,  and  need  not  appear  there  with  such  expectation.  This  we  re-affirm  in  behalf 
of  the  whole  South.  We  have  furnished  in  these  pages,  abundant  proof  that  the  only 
Bishops  the  Church  had  at  the  time  the  Protest  was  written,  were  fully  committed  to  the 
compromise  policy  of  the  Church  respecting  slavery,  and  the  position  was  taken  in  view 
of  a  possible  change  of  sentiment  by  some  of  the  Bishops,  but  especially  the  probable 
election  of  one  or  more  to  the  office,  who  might  be  abolitionists.  That  is,  we  have  no 
more  use  for  such  South,  than  the  North  have  for  Bishop  Andrew.  But  to  declare  an 
abolition  Bishop  unacceptable  in  the  South  is  a  "virtual  deposition,"  ergo,  according  to 
Drs.  Durbin,  Peck,  and  Elliott,  thedeclaration  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  unacceptable  at 
the  North,  was  his  "virtual  deposition,"  although  the  same  Doctors  stubbornly  deny  it  in 
other  parts  of  the  Reply,  and  maintain  that  it  does  not  even  amount  to  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sure of  any  kind.  An  abolition  Bishop  declared  unacceptable  in  the  South  is  "virtually 
deposed,"  but  a  Bishop  holding  slaves  by  the  direct  permission  of  law,  may  be  declared 
unacceptable  North,  without  even  the  implication  of  censure! 

Of  a  piece  with  the  preceding,  is  the  effort  of  the  Reply  to  disparage  the  reasoning  of 
the  Protest,  by  charging  upon  it  the  assumption,  that  a  Bishop  is  only  responsible  for 
criminal  conduct.  It  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  say  that  no  part  of  the  Protest  author- 
izes any  such  supposition,  in  whole  or  in  part,  directly  or  remotely.  It  merely  denies 
the  right  of  the  General  Conference  to  inflict  upon  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  official  disa- 
bility of  any  kind,  without  due  form  of  trial.  Of  which  more  in  its  place. 

The  Reply  very  warily  tries  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  North  is  satisfied  with  the 
existing  law  of  the  Church  on  slavery,  and  seeks  no  new  legislation.  That  new  legis- 
lation on  the  subject  was  called  for  in  1836,  1840,  and  1844,  none  will  deny.  The  call 
was  made  at  each  General  Conference,  by  several  thousand  petitioners,  and  how  does 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  1844,  comport  with  the  declaration  of  the  Reply!  The 
report  admits  the  call  for  new  legislation,  and  does  not  disapprove  it.  It  is  perfectly 
non-committal.  Nine  Annual  Conferences  and  ten  thousand  petitioners  ask  that  action 
may  be  had  and  results  secured  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  existing  law,  and  yet  the 
committee  say  nothing  in  defense  of  law  and  against  the  attempt  at  change  and  innova- 
tion. Was  it  the  purpose  of  the  committee  to  authorize  the  inference  South,  that  when 
they  thought  it  safe  to  do  so,  they  were  prepared  to  recommend  action]  Did  they  intend 
to  invite  nine  additional  Conferences  and  twenty  thousand  petitioners  to  try  it  again  at 
the  next  General  Conference?  Why  did  the  committee  recommend  and  the  Majority 
find  it  expedient  to  endorse  the  lawfulness  of  negro  testimony  against  white  persons  in 
Church  trials,  by  repealing  a  law  which  had  disallowed  it  in  States  and  Territories 
where  negroes  were  not  allowed  as  witnesses  in  civil  process?  Was  it  believed  that 
negro  witnesses  might  be  useful  auxiliaries  in  managing  the  South?  The  statement  of 
the  Reply  too,  is  discredited  by  the  counter  avowal  of  some  sixty  New  England  traveling 
preachers,  who,  since  the  General  Conference,  have  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  new 
legislation.  It  is  true  Dr.  Bond  and  Dr.  Elliott  are  trying  to  make  all  believe,  either 
that  the  men  in  question  are  first  rate,  straight  forward,  trust  worthy,  law  abiding  Metho- 
dists, and  will  save  the  New  England  Conferences,  "sound  to  the  core,"  or  that  they 
are  but  a  handful  of  noisy  ultra  abolitionists  and  not  worth  minding.  It  dont  seem  to 
be  at  all  material  to  the  argument  which  they  shall  turn  out  to  be.  It  seems  to  be 
resolved  on,  that  they  shall  either  keep  quiet  or  be  proved  to  be  unworthy  of  notice  or 
confidence.  What  adverse  influence  can  such  men  as  Crandall,  Porter,  King,  Binney, 
Remington,  and  a  hundred  or  two  like  them,  bring  to  bear  upon  the  slave  holding  por- 
tion of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  embracing  parts  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  and  the 
District  of  Columbia?  What  has  the  Philadelphia  Conference  to  fear,  although  it  has 


100 

important  slave  sections  in  Maryland  and  Virginia?  What  harm  will  accrue  to  the 
large  portions  of  Virginia  in  the  Pittsburg  and  Ohio  Conferences?  What  is  there  to 
alarm  the  Northern  societies  on  the  Southern  border  in  Kentucky  and  Missouri? 
We  are  assured  that  all  this,  working  together  for  good,  will  pass  off  pleasantly! 

There  are  many,  and  the  gravest  reasons,  on  purely  conservative  grounds,  for  a  di- 
vision of  Church  jurisdiction,  but  none  for  political  division,  as  it  regards  the  Union 
of  the  States.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  done  what  the  General  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  has  constantly  avowed  it  had  no  right  to  do,  for  any  purpose 
whatever;  that  is,  has  required  emancipation  in  States  where  it  is  prohibited  by  law, 
as  the  condition  of  Church  rights  and  immunities.  Civil  government  has  honorably 
and  nobly  refused  to  do  what  the  Church,  by  all  possible  means  of  agitation  and  ag- 
gression, is  constantly  attempting  to  accomplish.  Church  authority  is  interposed  for 
the  disturbance  of  civil  right.  Now,  while  the  Southern  part  of  the  Church  remains 
in  union  with  the  Northern,  it  is  held  responsible  for  such  aggression  and  disturbance, 
and  by  so  far  is  distrusted  and  condemned  by  public  sentiment  and  feeling.  If  the 
Church,  South,  however,  shall  separate,  as  proposed,  with  a  view  to  correct  the  evil, 
it  will  be  conclusive  proof  that  the  measures  of  Northern  agitators  and  divisionists  are 
disapproved  and  resisted  as  they  should  be,  and  Methodism  will  be  allowed  to  operate 
its  appropriate  functions.  How  far  the  assailants  of  the  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, on  the  subject  of  separation,  may  succeed  in  preventing  the  intended  result,  is 
now  uncertain.  The  General  Conference  is  pledged,  by  formal  stipulation,  to  what  its 
Northern  organs  say  shall  never  lake  place,  and  these  organs  have  pledged  the  Church, 
North,  to  courses  of  action  which  must,  of  necessity,  falsify  the  most  solemn  assuran- 
ces of  the  General  Conference.  The  South  has,  in  no  form,  resisted  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  more  directly  and  unequivocally,  than 
have  the  Northern  Church  papers  the  action  of  that  body  on  the  subject  of  separation. 
The  only  difference  is,  we  protest  and  resist  on  the  ground  of  violated  law,  as  we  show 
and  prove  at  length,  and  they  proceed  to  impugn,  disparage,  and  denounce  the  Confer- 
ence for  acting  in  the  alledged  absence  of  right.  Both  the  Majority  and  Minority,  that 
is,  the  Conference,  acted,  in  the  matter  of  separation,  upon  the  great  principle,  that 
whenever  uncontrolable  circumstances  require  changes,  as  necessary  to  the  adjustment 
of  the  connexional  interests  and  relations  of  the  Church,  and  especially  the  great  ob- 
jects of  its  organization,  it  must  be  constitutionally  competent  for  the  Church  to  make 
them.  This  is  one  of  those  self-evident  truths  connected  with  social  and  moral  rela- 
tions, about  which  a  thousand  denials  can  never  generate  a  single  doubt.  Men  may 
demur  and  disclaim,  but  who  can  doubt  the  existence  of  right  in  such  a  case?  We 
have  seen,  that  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the 
governing  jiower  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Traveling  Ministry.  This  power  is  prin- 
cipally wielded  through  the  medium  of  the  General  Conference,  and  indeed  exclusively, 
so  far  as  legislative  control  is  concerned.  The  separation  proposed,  relates  entirely, 
applies  only,  to  the  federal  relations  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  North  and  South,  and 
it  was  deemed  competent  for  the  General  Conference,  as  their  proper  and  common  or- 
gan of  action  in  the  premises,  to  project  and  adopt  a  provisional  plan  for  a  division  of 
jurisdiction,  which  would  give  to  two  federal  representative  bodies,  separated  by  fixed 
geographical  lines,  the  power  and  rights,  within  the  limits  of  each,  respectively,  now 
belonging  to  one.  This  plan,  "mandatory"  and  authoritative  as  it  is  known  to  be,  has 
been  set  at  nought  by  editors  and  writers,  North,  as  not  binding  on  any  one,  however 
stringently  Bishops  Souleand  Andrew  are  bound  by  mere  "advice."  The  Commission- 
ers of  the  North,  too,  who  accepted  an  important  official  trust,  which  allows  them  no 


101 

discretion,  have  gratuitously  declared  their  purpose  not  to  fulfil  that  trust,  unless  what 
the  General  Conference  expressly  provides  shall  be  a  "constitutional"  division  of  the 
Church,  shall  turn  out  to  be  a  mere  "secession!"  It  is  true  Dr.  Olin  and  others,  in  the 
North,  hold  a  language  very  different  from  that  under  notice,  and  vehemently  and  elo- 
quently maintain  that  the  faith  and  honor  of  the  Majority  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  are  deeply  and  irretrievably  implicated,  should  they  refuse  or  fail  to  redeem  the 
pledge  of  the  plan  of  separation,  mutually  agreed  upon  by  the  parties.  The  refusal  of 
the  North  to  abide  by  a  plain  contract  arrangement,  entered  into  by  the  only  constitutional 
means  in  the  power  of  the  Church,  will  of  course  render  it  necessary,  should  the  South 
hold  them  to  the  contract,  that  the  matter  be  tested  by  other  forms  of  trial.  And  if 
driven  to  such  a  resort,  we  have  full  confidence  we  shall  be  able  to  make  it  appear  that 
we  have  been  forced  to  the  issue  by  a  necessity  created  entirely  by  the  wrong-doing  of 
the  Majority.  That  the  Northern  Conferences  have  so  violated  the  long  established  law 
of  the  Church,  both  as  it  regards  Slavery  and  Episcopacy,  as  to  forfeit,  in  law  and  equi- 
ty, the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  have  no  earthly 
doubt.  That  the  Southern  Conferences  are  the  true  representatives  and  assertors  of 
the  Law  and  Discipline  of  the  Church,  with  regard  to  both,  and  that  this  can  be  made 
appear  before  any  competent  tribunal,  we  have  as  little  doubt.  And  we  deeply 
regret  to  say,  that  appearances,  at  present,  indicate  that  the  controversy  will  only  find 
its  termination  upon  such  an  issue.  Should  the  Church,  North,  dishonor  the  pledge  of 
the  General  Conference,  and  refuse  to  divide,  as  per  General  Conference  plan,  and  thus 
attempt  to  make  the  Southern  organization,  should  one  be  formed,  a  "mere  secession," 
no  remedy  will  be  left  the  South  but  the  issue  above. 

Among  the  unmanly  and  disreputable  shifts  resorted  to  in  this  controversy,  is  a  re- 
cent attempt  at  imposition  upon  the  credulity  of  the  Church,  by  the  reckless  assertion, 
that  a  simple  division  of  General  Conference,  or  federal  jurisdiction,  is  an  idea  of  re- 
cent origin  in  the  South — unthought  of  until  lately.  To  show  the  notorious  and  inex- 
cusable want  of  any  show  of  truth  in  this  statement,  it  is  only  necessary  to  recur  to 
the  Southern  Declaration,  in  which  such  separation  is  specified  in  terms,  as  the  only  one 
thought  of  by  the  South,  and  to  the  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  Majority,  every 
one  of  whose  provisions  is  conformed  to  this  specific  idea.  It  has  been  attempted,  too, 
to  practice  a  similar  deception,  by  announcing,  that  until  it  was  found  impolitic  to  do 
so,  the  South,  with  great  unanimity,  were  in  favor  of  expunging  every  thing  from  the 
Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Beyond  the  extent  to  which  a  few  exceptions 
qualify  the  general  rule,  this  charge  is  as  false  as  the  preceding  one.  The  Southern 
Delegations,  at  New  York,  resolved,  in  form,  to  abide  by  the  Discipline  as  it  was,  in 
any  and  every  event.  This  has  been  the  uniform  purpose  and  avowal  of  the  South,  ever 
since,  with  but  very  few  exceptions.  In  the  instance  of  avowed  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  separation,  by  individuals,  popular  meetings,  Annual  and  Quarterly  Conferen- 
ces, the  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  have  been  in  the  proportion  of  about  one  in  fif- 
ty. To  every  one  in  the  South,  who  has  suggested  a  change  in  the  law  of  slavery,  ten 
in  the  North  have  avowed  a  determination  to  seek  a  change  in  favor  of  abolition. 
Why  have  not  our  one-eyed  watchmen  seen  and  reported  this  also?  Have  their  aboli- 
tion affinities  become  so  strong  that  they  can  see,  South,  what  does  not  exist,  but  turn- 
ing North,  are  unable  to  discern  what  could  not  fail  to  attract,  had  it  not  already  be- 
come perfectly  common! 

The  argument,  from  want  of  authority  to  divide,  strikes  one  with  surprise,  after  the 
claim  put  forth  by  the  last  General  Conference,  arrogating  to  that  body  all  power,  le- 
gislative, judicial,  and  executive,  claiming  the  right  to  do  any  and  every  thing  they 


102 

saw  proper,  except  the  very  few  things  placed  in  custody  of  the  restrictive  articles.  It 
has,  moreover,  always  been  the  doctrjne  of  the  Church,  right  or  wrong,  that  the  sole 
right  to  govern  the  Church,  in  all  its  diversified  interests,  belongs  to  the  Traveling 
Ministry,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Local  Ministry  and  Laity,  and  the  doctrine  has  been 
twice  Jormally  avowed  by  the  General  Conference,  beside  being  shown  by  the  very  struc- 
ture of  the  government  itself.  The  Traveling  Ministry  constitute  the  government. 
The  rights  of  government  accrue  to  them  exclusively,  in  view  of  all  the  legal  provis- 
ions connected  either  with  the  constitution  or  the  laws.  Any  rights  of  sovereignty, 
therefore,  predicable  of  the  Church,  may,  as  the  Church  has  always  been  organized, 
be  rightfully  exercised  by  the  Traveling  Ministry,  and,  since  1808,  by  the  "Delegates 
of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  in  General  Conference  assembled."  The  right  to 
divide  is  an  extreme  right,  incidental  to  inherent  sovereignty,  always  belonging  to 
those  constituting  the  government ;  and  its  exercise  is  always  lawful,  when  demanded 
by  any  adequate  imperative  emergency.  If,  then,  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  that  to  the  Traveling  Ministry  belongs,  by  conventional  compart,  all  right  to 
govern  and  control,  they  alone,  of  course,  have  the  right  to  determine  the  question  of 
division.  The  radical  claim,  recently  set  up,  in  various  quarters,  that  the  General 
Conference,  as  the  organ  of  the  Traveling  Ministry,  the  government  proper,  has  no 
right  to  divide  a  jurisdiction  absolutely  its  own,  as  elsewhere  and  otherwise  asserted, 
without  the  consent  of  the  Local  Ministry  and  the  people,  or  rather  the  assumed  right 
of  the  people  to  decide  the  question,  is  a  claim  involving  a  principle  which  has,  at  dif- 
ferent times,  as  we  have  seen,  received  the  formal  condemnation  of  the  Church,  through 
the  General  Conference.  Whatever  may  be  the  natural,  moral,  or  scriptural  right  of 
the  people  primarily,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is,  that  by  consenting  to  be  governed 
by  the  Traveling  Ministry,  in  the  act  of  entering  the  Church,  all  such  right  was  surren- 
/  dered,  and  cannot  now  be  claimed,  without  assuming  a  radical,  revolutionary  position 
in  relation  to  the  government  of  the  Church.  The  only  legal  right  of  division  belongs 
incontestably  to  the  General  Conference.  And  this  right,  in  fact  and  in  form,  has  been 
exercised  by  the  General  Conference,  in  setting  off,  by  formal  enactment  and  legisla- 
tive provision,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Canada.  And  to  deny  the  right,  in 
view  of  a  precedent  so  perfectly  plain  and  unambiguous,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  most 
absurdly  inconsistent,  until  it  be  shown  that  the  Canada  separation  was  a  "secession," 
and  all  who  favored  it  "disunionists."  It  is,  further,  true,  that  the  Canada  case  covers 
the  entire  ground,  and  involves  every  principle  implicated  in  the  pending  division. 
Both  parties,  it  is  well  known,  intended  to  provide  for  a  separation,  without  another 
meeting  of  the  General  Conference.  The  Plan  of  Separation  authorizes  the  Southern 
Conferences  to  judge  of  the  necessity  of  separation,  and  furnishes  the  highest  warrant 
of  the  Church  for  a  separate  organization,  if  it  be  deemed  necessary. 

The  South  asked  that  the  Conferences  in  the  slave  holding  States  might  be  set  off  un- 
der the  jurisdiction  of  a  separate  General  Conference,  with  a  view  to  prevent  the  ar- 
ray of  the  North  and  the  South  against  each  other,  at  every  General  Conference,  (as 
now  organized,)  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  A  constitutional  division  of  general  juris- 
diction was  prayed  for,  all  other  organic  relations  remaining  the  same.  It  was  suppos- 
ed, that,  as  the  General  Conference  possessed  full  power  to  make  all  regulations  for 
the  welfare  of  the  Church,  deemed  indispensable,  and  not  inconsistent  with  the  con- 
stitution, that  the  right  of  extreme  necessity  authorized  the  South  to  ask,  and  the  North 
to  grant  the  separation  in  question,  and  such  an  arrangement  was  mutually  agreed  to 
by  the  parties.  It  was  not  thought,  by  either  party,  that  the  constitution  had  made 
provision  for  such  a  separation,  but  by  both,  that  so  far  as  necessity,  in  view  of  the 


103 

good  of  the  whole  Church  demanded  it,  it  could  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  constitu- 
tion, the  primary  design  of  which  is  to  promote  such  good.  Hence,  the  Conference 
ordered  that  a  "constitutional"  plan  of  separation  should  be  devised  and  reported  by  the 
appropriate  committee,  which  was  done  accordingly,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Confer- 
ence in  due  form.  The  Northern  votes  in  favor  of  this  plan  were  more  than  double  the 
number  given  from  the  South.  The  North,  with  almost  absolute  unanimity,  declared, 
that  should  the  Southern  Conferences  decide  in  favor  of  it,  such  separation  of  jurisdic- 
tion should  take  place,  in  right  of  such  special  grant.  All  the  sixteen  Southern  Con- 
ferences have  go  decided,  and  the  numerical  dissent  in  the  Traveling  Ministry  has  been 
less  than  one  half  per  cent.  The  condition,  therefore,  upon  which  the  Majority  of  the 
General  Conference  pledged  the  North  to  a  separation,  having  been  most  fully  and  un- 
equivocally realized,  the  North  is  committed  to  the  issue  without  any  possible  chance  of 
honorable  retreat,  unless  with  the  consent  of  the  South.  That  this  whole  transaction, 
both  in  its  form  and  subject  matter,  has  been  grossly  distorted  and  utterly  misrepre- 
sented by  General  Conference  organs,  whether  viewed  on  moral  or  legal  grounds,  is  a 
position  not  likely  to  stand  in  need  of  proof.  The  almost  innumerable  statements  and 
declarations,  that  the  South  proposed  to  "separate  from  the  Church,"  was  understood 
to  be  a  "secession,"  and  to  "go  off  as  no  longer  any  part  of  the  Church,"  are  not  only 
unjust  and  untrue,  as  it  regards  the  South,  but  a  libel  upon  the  official  action  of  the  Ma- 
jority of  the  late  General  Conference.  The  General  Conference  gravely  and  explicitly 
instructed  the  committee  of  nine  to  "devise  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual  and 
friendly  division  of  the  Church"  into  two  great  departments,  North  and  South,  in  the 
following  words  : — 

"Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  communication  of 
the  Delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences,  be  instructed,  provided  they  cannot,  in  their 
judgment,  devise  a  plan  for  the  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  now  existing  in  the  Church 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly 
division  of  the  C/iwrcA." 

Here  is  our  warrant.  And  let  it  be  noticed — 1st.  That  it  is  proclaimed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  that  they  did  not  think  a  constitutional  division  impracticable.  And, 
2d,  That,  in  reporting  the  plan,  under  instruction,  that  it  should  be  constitutional,  there 
is  no  intimation  from  the  committee,  or  others,  that  it  was  not  so.  If  the  men  who 
adopted  the  above  resolution,  and  also  sustained,  by  their  votes,  the  plan  of  separa- 
tion reported  by  the  committee,  acting  under  the  instruction  given,  intended  that  the 
separation  should  not  be  constitutional,  and  in  pursuance  of  law  and  order,  but  in  fact 
a  "secession,"  operating  a  forfeiture  of  Church  rights,  as  now  avowed  by  official 
agents  of  the  Conference,  then  we  cannot  for  a  moment  hesitate,  nor  do  we  believe 
public  opinion  will,  in  pronouncing  it  a  deliberate  fraud  practised  upon  the  South, 
against  the  purposed  mischiefs  of  which  the  South  is  amply  protected,  both  by  ecclesi- 
astical and  civil  law.  The  General  Conference  is,  in  the  face  of  Heaven  and  Earth, 
committed  to  a  "constitutional"  and  friendly  "division  of  the  Church,"  mutually  agreed 
to  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences  represented  in  the  General  Conference.  The  South 
are  no  more  "divisionists"  than  the  North.  The  true  sponsors  of  division  are  the  men 
who  voted  for  the  resolution,  and  the  report  in  question,  and  they  are  held  to  the  re- 
sponsibility involved.  No  plea  of  oversight,  with  regard  to  the  use  of  terms,  can  be 
urged  by  the  Majority,  for  a  Southern  man,  fearing  it  might  create  an  insuperable  diffi- 
culty, moved  to  strike  out  the  term  "constitutional,"  which  the  Conference  promptly 
refused  to  do,  and  by  retaining  stressed  the  term,  as  one  to  which  no  little  importance 
was  attached.  The  Majority,  therefore,  are  pledged  to  the  result — a  constitutional  di- 
vision of  the  Church,  and  any  and  every  effort  to  the  contrary,  tending  in  any  way  to 


prevent  such  a  result,  involves  the  faith  and  honor  of  the  Conference.  The  General 
Conference  action,  as  above,  binds  the  Church,  in  law,  as  well  as  on;the  score  of  hon- 
or and  good  faith.  It  is  a  plain  legislative  contract,  by  the  supreme  legislative  power, 
upon  which  the  South  relied  and  acted,  and  should  the  North  determine  not  to  keep 
faith  in  the  premises,  a  new  issue  is  formed,  and  the  question  arises,  whether  the  decep- 
tion attempted  to  be  imposed  upon  the  South  does  not  rightfully  transfer  tke  identity  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the  party  keeping  good  faith  in  the  transaction.  Dr. 
Elliott  and  others  maintained,  (and  every  man  who  voted  for  the  resolution  and  report 
above,  must  have  thought  so,  or  trifled  strangely  both  with  his  conscience  and  reputation,) 
that  the  plan  of  division  reported  by  instruction  could  be  carried  into  effect  consistently 
with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Discipline,  and  of  course  constitutionally.  The  Northern 
party  are  bound  to  a  division,  precluding  all  idea  of  "secession,"  if  truth,  honor,  and 
law  can  bind  them,  and  retreat  is  impossible,  without  a  sacrifice  which  must  make  them 
poor  indeed.  In  all  the  proceedings  in  the  case,  the  one  distinct  intelligible  idea,  mis- 
understood by  no  one,  was  a  peaceful,  constitutional  division  or  separation  of  the 
Church.  All  idea  of  separation  from  the  Church  was  distinctly  disowned  and  repudi- 
ated ;  and  the  falsehood  of  the  charge  is  proved  by  the  express  language  of  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  in  the  shape  of  authoritative  instruction.  This  position,  in  view  of 
the  evidence  supporting  it,  cannot  be  in  the  least  affected  by  a  thousand  denials,  how- 
ever painfully  unpleasant  it  may  be,  to  see  the  truth  of  history,  as  found  upon  the  jour- 
nals, and  in  the  debates  of  the  General  Conference,  contradicted  by  men,  who  them- 
selves did,  what  they  affirm  was  not  done  at  all!  That  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference was  designed  and  understood  to  be  "constitutional,"  is  inevitable,  however  that 
action  may  have  been  perverted  and  misrepresented  since.  In  the  General  Conferences 
of  1836  and  1840,  it  was  the  opinion  of  those  bodies,  with  but  few  exceptions,  that  it 
was  competent  for  the  General  Conference,  as  proposed  by  the  lamented  Cox,  to  set  off 
the  infant  Church  of  Liberia  as  an  independent  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  had 
been  done  before,  in  the  case  of  Canada.  The  question  of  constitutional  right,  in  all 
these  cases,  is  one  and  the  same,  and  must,  certainly,  with  the  advocates  of  General 
Conference  inerrability,  (if  not  with  others,)  tend  to  strengthen  our  argument.  What- 
ever name  it  may  suit  Northern  editors  or  writers  to  give  the  proposed  Southern  organ- 
ization, such  organization  is  clearly  and  irrefutably  authorized  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence. That  body  agreed,  by  stipulations,  plain  and  unambiguous  as  any  requirement 
or  prohibition  of  the  decalogue,  should  the  Southern  Conferences  so  elect,  to  set  them 
off  and  allow  them  to  organize  a  separate  ecclesiastical  establishment,  as  an  accredited  por- 
tion of  the  great  Methodist  family  in  the  United  States,  into  which  it  should  be  lawful 
for  any  member,  minister,  or  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  enter,  with- 
out censure  or  disability  of  any  kind.  And  to  deny  this,  in  the  face  of  the  evidence, 
accessible  to  all,  is  worse  than  fatuous.  It  is  true  the  plan  contemplates  a  change  of 
the  6th  restrictive  article,  in  order  to  a  division  of  the  funds,  and  the  consent  of  the 
Annual  Conferences,  to  this  effect,  is  recommended  by  the  General  Conference,  but  no 
such  consent  is  made  necessary  by  the  plan  to  legalize  the  organization,  should  the 
South  find  it  necessary  to  organize.  If  the  three  fourths  vote  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences is  not  obtained,  it  only  affects  the  fund  question,  without,  in  any  way,  vitiating 
the  general  movement.  Should  the  South  see  proper  to  organize  without  such  security, 
the  risk  of  course  is  incurred  by  the  South,  as  to  the  fund,  but  the  arrangement,  as  a 
whole,  remains  unaffected  by  the  failure.  The  fact  is,  there  will  be  no  risk  finally,  as 
several  of  the  Northern  Conferences  will,  at  their  first  meeting  after  the  formation  of 
a  separate  Southern  connexion,  if  they  redeem  the  pledges  they  have  given,  vote  for 


105 

the  change  of  the  restrictive  article,  and  so  remove  the  difficulty.  So  far,  therefore,  no 
obstacle  exists  to  the  new  organization.  It  is  urged,  however,  that  the  rights  claimed, 
upon  the  basis  of  the  contract,  have  been  forfeited  by  the  South,  because  Southern  pa- 
pers, meetings,  &c.,  have  held  severe  language  with  regard  to  the  North.  This  may 
be  true,  but  as  equally  severe  language  has  been  held  by  the  North  against  the  South, 
any  tolerably  fair  examination  of  this  matter,  will  satisfy  any  one  that  there  has  been 
quite  as  much  forfeiture  of  right  North,  as  South.  If  this  view  of  the  subject  should 
ever  assume  the  shape  of  a  direct  issue,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  show  on  which  side 
the  line  truth  and  facts  have  suffered  most  from  distortion  and  misrepresentation. 
Such  a  plea  can  avail  nothing.  The  charges  of  the  South  against  the  North  are  in  the 
Protest,  and  were  formally  preferred  before  the  plan  of  separation  was  agreed  to.  A 
war  of  editors  and  writers  cannot  affect  the  legal  position  of  parties.  The  plea,  to 
have  presented  even  a  show  of  reason,  should  have  been  originally  urged  upon  the 
ground  of  the  Protest  itself.  We  are  strongly  persuaded  the  Northern  Conferences, 
generally,  would  be  un\villing  to  resort  to  such  a  plea,  however  partizan  advocates,  and 
perhaps  a  few  Conferences,  may  be  induced  to  turn  it  to  what  account  they  can. 

Were  the  Local  Ministry  and  membership  admitted  to  a  participation  in  the  legisla- 
tion and  government  of  the  Church,  by  itsconslitution  and  laws,  the  proposed  division, 
without  their  consent,  would,  it  is  admitted,  vitiate  the  whole  procedure,  but  as  it  is,  it 
cannot  affect  either  the  ecclesiastical  or  legal  rights  of  the  parties.  We  speak  of  things 
as  they  are,  not  as  they  ought  to  be,  if  any  should  think  them  not  right.  Not  only  has 
the  General  Conference  twice  formally  declared  that  all  such  right,  as  to  Local  Preach- 
ers and  the  people,  is  barred  by  the  constitution,  but  these  bodies  themselves  have  glo- 
ried in  proclaiming  that  they  have  no  such  right  as  that  assumed  for  them  in  the  argu- 
ment to  which  we  are  replying.  That  any,  all  constitutional  right  of  the  kind  is  denied  to 
any  portion  of  the  Church,  except  the  Traveling  Ministry,  see  report  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1824,  also,  Dr.  Emory's  Report  in  1828,  Dr.  Bond's  Appeal,  and  other  docu- 
ments on  the  same  subject,  published  by  authority  of  the  Church,  in  all  which  it  is  de- 
finitely assumed  that  the  Local  Ministry  and  Laity  have  barred  their  natural  right,  if 
they  ever  had  any,  to  all  participation  in  the  governing  power  of  the  Church,  by  con- 
ventional arrangement,  and  that  loyalty  to  Methodism,  the  peace  and  good  of  the  Church, 
and  especially  the  existence  and  success  of  the  general  itinerant  system,  imperiously 
require  that  they  should  not  seek  to  disturb  an  organic  adjustment,  so  vital  to  the  in- 
terests of  all  concerned.  Now,  however,  the  Northern  Majority  are  attempting  to 
rouse,  and  excite  to  action,  the  stupendous  popular  force  which  it  was  then  contended 
would  inevitably  destroy  the  Church.  Why  this  change1?  Is  it  principle  or  policy? 
Is  the  old  doctrine  discarded,  or  is  it  a  mere  ruse,  intended  for  temporary  effect,  when 
the  old  order  of  things  is  to  be  re-assertedl  The  true  question  is,  have  the  confedera- 
ting Annual  Conferences  a  right  to  say,  by  their  Delegates  in  General  Conference  as- 
sembled, urgent  reasons  demanding  it,  that  instead  of  a  single  federal  jurisdiction,  as 
now,  by  means  of  one  General  Conference,  they  will  divide  this  jurisdiction  into  two, 
the  one  North  and  the  other  South,  and  let  two  General  Conferences,  with  equal  powers 
and  privileges,  within  their  respective  limits,  be  the  organs  of  federal  action,  instead  of 
one,  as  heretofore*!  And,  as  the  Local  Ministry  and  membership  have  always  been  de« 
nied  the  right  of  representation,  both  in  the  Annual  Conferences  and  the  General  Con- 
ference, we  are  curious  to  know  how  the  Majority,  without  a  change  of  organic  law, 
can  ini-est  them  with  the  right  to  resist  the  action  of  the  one  and  the  other,  u;>on  the 
question  of  dividing  a  jurisdiction  from  which  they  have  always  been  carefully  exclu- 
ded! How  does  it  happen  that  the  concurrence  of  these  portions  of  the  Church,  denied 
14 


106 

all  participation  in  the  government,  by  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  is  now  necessary 
to  the  constitutional  action  of  bodies  officially  declared  to  be  independent  of  them,  by 
conventional  compact,  in  their  right  to  govern  the  Church]  Did  the  proposed  separa- 
tion affect  the  moral  laws  of  Methodism,  or  the  moral  relations  and  interests  of  Meth- 
odists, as  Church  members;  did  it  involve  any  change  as  to  faith  or  morals,  ordinan- 
ces or  ceremonies,  did  it  touch  the  elements  of  Christian  character  or  fellowship,  did  it 
propose  any  material  change  of  government  or  discipline,  the  case  would  be  different, 
and  the  primary  moral  rights  of  the  great  body  of  the  Church  would  stand  out  with 
commanding  appeal.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  is  proposed.  It  is  simply  a  modal  change, 
affecting  only  a  single  feature  of  government.  All  the  moral  laws  and  the  Discipline 
of  the  Church  remain  untouched.  The  Annual  Conference  system  and  the  Episcopacy. 
the  Itineracy,  and,  in  a  word,  the  whole  moral  and  ecclesiastical  machinery  of  Metho- 
dism are  to  remain  as  before.  The  only  change  thought  of  by  the  Southern  Delega- 
tions in  the  late  General  Conference,  was  a  division  of  General  Conference  jurisdic- 
tion, leaving  all  else  unaffected  by  the  change.  This,  and  this  only,  is  specifically  set 
forth  in  the  Southern  "Declaration."  And  this,  and  this  only,  is  specifically  responded 
to  in  the  "constitutional"  plan  of  division  adopted  by  the  General  Conference.  And 
the  truth  of  history,  the  irresistible  evidence  of  facts,  intelligible  to  the  plainest  un- 
derstanding, will  not  be  long  in  making  it  appear,  that  those  who,  under  the  simulated 
pretence  of  defending  the  General  Conference,  have  represented  the  South  as  aiming  at 
the  disruption  of  the  Church,  and  a  separation  from  it,  either  do  not  understand  the 
subject  themselves,  or  are  resolved  that  others  shall  not.  They  are  either  ignorant  of 
the  facts  in  the  case,  or  perversely  misrepresent  them,  with  intention  to  deceive.  We 
state  what  we  know  many  North,  as  well  as  South,  avow  themselves  compelled  to  be- 
lieve. How  far  men  may  rely  upon  their  own  pre-conceptions  and  prejudices  os  cor- 
rect, and  proceed  to  affirm  and  dogmatize  upon  such  authority,  without  examination,  and 
thus  falsify  the  truth  of  history,  and  even  the  publicity  of  official  acts  and  records, 
without  intending  to  do  it,  is  a  matter  about  which  we  shall  not  pause  to  speculate. 
Those  interested  can  solve  the  question  at  their  leisure.  Meanwhile,  the  evidence  ac- 
cumulating upon  the  subject,  may,  at  no  distant  day,  form  an  element  of  history  as  cu- 
rious as  it  will  be  valuable,  and  a  chapter  ceitainly  not  more  humiliating  than  it  will 
be  found  irrefutable.  The  North  arranged,  approved,  and  adopted  the  plan  of  division, 
conjunctively  with  the  South.  They  had  a  majority  of  two-thirds  both  in  the  committee 
and  the  Conference.  That  their  honor  and  good-faith  are  pledged  to  carry  it  into  effect,  is 
a  position  few,  it  is  believed,  will  be  prepared  to  question.  They  cannot  recede  with 
any  claim  to  truth  or  fairness.  The  act  was  a  stipulation  in  form,  and  cannot  be  re- 
called. It  is  matter  of  history,  and  cannot  be  denied.  The  plan  of  separation  is  a 
plain  contract,  and  any  attempt  to  evade  it,  by  either  party,  would  involve  shameless 
dishonor.  The  Majority  are  bound,  if  they  can  be  bound  by  any  pledge  man  can  give 
to  man.  All  who  attempt  to  frustrate  and  defeat  the  plan  agreed  upon,  are  at  least,  resist- 
ing the  action  of  the  General  Conference.  The  opposition  to  the  plan,  ostensibly  urg- 
ed upon  the  ground  of  constitutional  difficulties,  commands  respect,  so  far  as  these  dif- 
ficulties are  pointed  out,  and  assume  the  shape  of  argument,  and  it  has  been  our  aim, 
in  this  discussion,  to  meet  and  dispose  of  such  difficulties  with  fairness  and  candor. 
The  outcry  and  declamation  we  have  had  on  this  topic,  are  perhaps  best  answered  by  show- 
ing in  how  many  ways  those  who  are  thus  trying  to  excite  alarm,  have  either  so  offend- 
ed themselves,  or  have  witnessed  the  violatkn  of  the  constitution  and  laws  cf  the 
Church,  by  others,  without  any  apparent  sense  of  obliquity  or  disapproval.  But  too 
many  have  furnished  evidence  that  their  difficulties,  in  this  respect,  are  strangely  CBS- 


107 

sided,  and  connect  with  whatever  contravenes  their  wishes.  For  example,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Majority,  as  represented  by  the  Reply,  and  also  by  Bishop  Hamlineand  others, 
is,  that  it  is  constitutionally  competent  for  the  General  Conference  to  do  any  and  every 
thing  not,  forbidden  by  the  restrictive  rules,  and  by  taking  this  broad  position,  which 
they  cannot  deny,  it  is  declared  competent  for  the  General  Conference  to  authorize,  as 
they  did,  a  separate  Southern  organization,  as  all  know  this  is  not  denied  to  the  Con- 
ference in  the  restrictive  rules.  Their  own  exposition,  therefore,  of  constitutional 
right,  is  at  war  with  the  present  doctrine  of  the  party,  unless  misrepresented  by  their 
own  official  organs. 

Among  the  many  logical  fatuities  brought  to  view  in  this  controversy,  may  be  ranked 
the  attempt  to  show  that  the  term  separation,  in  the  plan  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference, was  used  to  denote  not  what  it  properly  means,  but  "secession."  The  mean- 
ing of  the  term  will  be  determined  at  once  by  an  examination  of  the  "declaration"  of 
Southern  delegates — the  resolution  of  instruction  and  the  report  of  the  committee  of 
nine,  adopted  as  the  plan  of  separation.  In  their  brief  and  unpretending  declaration, 
the  delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences  simply  inform  the  General  Conference  "that 
the  continued  agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  in  a  portion  of  the 
Church,  the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference,  and  especially 
the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  must  produce  a  state  of  things 
in  the  South,  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Confer- 
ence over  those  Conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slave 
holding  States."  The  obvious  and  only  meaning  of  this  language  is,  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences cannot  succeed  in  the  great  objects  they  have  in  view,  while  controlled  by  the 
abolition  and  anti-slavery  majority  of  the  North,  and  the  reasons  why  they  cannot,  are 
clearly  specified.  Is  there  any  thing  revolutionary  or  schismatic  in  this?  Does  the 
declaration  lack  manliness  or  moderation  of  either  tone  or  temper?  Upon  this  declara- 
tion the  committee  was  raised,  and  acted  under  the  following  instruction:  Resolved, 
That  the  committee  be  instructed,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mu- 
tual and  friendly  division  of  the  Church."  That  is,  a  "division  of  the  Church"  so  far 
as  prayed  for — releasing  the  Southern  Conferences  from  the  control  of  the  Northern 
majority,  by  allowing  them  a  separate  organization.  Both  the  declaration  and  the  reso- 
lution are  in  strict  conformity  with  the  closing  sentence  of  the  Protest,  "it  is  believed, 
it  will  be  found  practicable  to  devise  and  adopt  such  measures  and  arrangements,  pres- 
ent and  prospective,  as  will  secure  an  amicable  division  of  the  Church  upon  the  broad 
principles  of  right  and  equity."  Thus  showing  what  kind  of  division  only  was  had 
in  view.  The  committee  did  not  ask  to  be  released  from  the  instruction  given.  They 
did  not  intimate  that  they  could  not  perform  the  duty  assigned  them.  They  reported 
under  the  binding  control  of  the  instructions  received,  without  giving  notice  in  any 
form,  that  they  had  found  it  either  necessary  or  expedient  to  swerve.  If  they  did  not 
intend  their  report  as  a  "constitutional  plan  for  the  division  of  the  Church,"  they  be- 
trayed a  solemn  official  trust  and  deceived  the  Church  North  and  South.  The  Majority, 
when  they  had  it  perfectly  in  their  power,  refused  to  release  them,  as  we  have  seen,  from 
the  "constitutional"  restraint ;  and  under  these  circumstances,  they  cite  the  thirteen 
Southern  Conferences  as  representing  in  their  Declaration,  "that  for  various  reasons 
enumerated,  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Christian  Ministry  and  Church  organiza- 
tion, cannot  be  successfully  accomplished  by  them,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  now  constituted."  Showing  that  the  sole  difficulty  was  connected 
with  the  federal  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference,  and  that  a  division  of  this  so 
as  to  place  us»  from  under  the  oppressive  control  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  was  all 


108 

that  we  prayed  for.  Hence  the  committee  say,  "in  the  event  of  a  separation — a  con- 
tingency to  which  the  declaration  asks  attention,  as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the 
duty  of  this  General  Conference,  to  meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  .ind 
the  strictest  equity,"  So  also,  "should  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave  holding 
States,  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  the  following  rule 
shall  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such  connection."  It  is  a 
geographical  division,  in  view  of  securing  a  separate  and  independent  jurisdiction  in 
the  South.  The  report  decides  that  all  Societies,  Stations,  and  Conferences,  belonging 
to  either  side  of  the  lino  of  separation,  shall  so  belong  by  simply  "adhering  by  a  vote  of 
a  majority."  If  so  to  adhere  South  is  "secession,"  why  not  North,  as  precisely  the 
same  expression  is  used  in  both  cases?  So  "adhering"  they  are  to  remain  under  the 
unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the  Church  "adhered"  to.  Ministers  on  either  side  the  line 
are  expressly  forbidden  to  attempt,  in  any  way,  the  formation  of  Churches  or  Societies 
upon  the  other.  "Interior  charges  shall  in  all  cases,  be  left  to  the  care  of  that  Church 
within  whose  territory  they  are  situated."  "Ministers,  local  and  traveling,  of  every 
grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may  as  they  prefer  remain  in  that 
Church,  or  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church  South."  Thus  most  clearly 
showing  that  the  Southern  division  was  to  be  recognized  as  a  Church  proper,  not  less 
than  the  Northern.  The  report  calls  the  boundary  "the  line  of  division."  It  speaka 
of  the  proposed  Southern  division,  as  '  'a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion" — "the  Church 
in  the  South — the  Southern  Church — Church  South — that  Church — the  Southern  organi- 
zation— the  Church  so  formed — the  Conferences  South."  The  latter  even  after  separa- 
tion, are  recognized  as  rightful  claimants  for  a  portion  of  the  chartered  fund.  The  di- 
vision of  the  book  concern  is  a  transfer  upon  the  ground  of  admitted  claim.  Now  is 
it  possible  that  all  this  could  take  place  among  men  of  sense  and  upright  purpose,  if  it 
had  been  intended  the  South  should  be  a  "secession."  We  regard  it  as  impossible. 
Meanwhile  we  have  seen  that  nothing  has  occured  since,  to  change,  alter,  or  nullify  in 
any  way,  the  stipulations  binding  the  parties.  The  general  view  we  have  taken  is  fully 
and  fairly  sustained  by  the  debates.  Dr.  Elliott  said  of  the  plan,  that  "it  would  insure 
the  purposes  assigned,  and  would  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  Church — was  a  proper 
course  for  them  to  pursue  in  conformity  with  the  Scriptures— all  history  did  not  furnish 
an  example  of  st>  large  a  body  of  Christians  remaining  in  such  close  and  unbroken  con- 
nection ;  it  was  found  necessary  to  separate  ;  the  Churches  at  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and 
Jerusalem,  were  as  distinct  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  be  if  the  sugges- 
ted separation  took  place;  to  this  conclusion  they  must  eventually  come  ;  the  measure 
contemplated  WHS  not  schism  but  separation  for  their  mutual  convenience  and  prosperi- 
ty." Rev.  Mr.  Griffith,  hostile  to  the  whole  plan,  urged  among  other  things,  that  it 
gave  no  choice  to  interior  charges,  "if  they  wished  to  be  members  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  whether  it  should  be  the  Southern  or  the  Northern."  Dr.  Paine,  Chair- 
man of  the  committee,  spoke  of  the  South  as  likely  to  find  it  necessary  to  "carry  out 
the  provisions  of  this  enactment" — of  a  Southern  "convention"  resolving  on  an  "organ- 
ization" in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  report ;  the  measure  had  been  con- 
cocted in  the  spirit  of  compromise  and  fraternal  feeling,  in  the  hope  of  preventing  agi- 
tation and  schism."  Dr.  Luckey  said  "he  regarded  the  resolution,  (the  first,)  as  pro- 
visionary,  providing  in  an  amicable,  proper  way,  for  such  action  as  might  hereafter  be 
necessary  ;  if  the  separation  were  necessary,  it  ought  to  be  amicably  and  constitution- 
ally effected,  and  there  was  no  intention  of  doing  it  otherwise.  Mr.  Wesley  sau  it 
necessary  to  permit  the  connection  in  the  United  States  to  separate."1  Dr.  Bangs  says 
of  the  committee,  being  a  member  of  it,  "they  were  instructed  by  a  resolution  of  the 


109 

Conference,  how  to  act  in  the  premises.  They  were  to  provide  for  separation,  if  they 
could  do  so  constitutionally — they  had  presented  this  report,  from  which  the  Conference 
would  see  they  had  at  least  obeyed  their  instructions  and  had  met  the  constitutional  diffi- 
culty, by  sending  round  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  that  portion  of  the  report  which  re- 
quired their  concurrence,  The  Laws,  Discipline,  Government,  all  would  he  the  same. 
The  South  asked  a  separate  Conference,  adapted  to  the  institutions  of  that  portion  of  the 
country."  Kev.  Mr.  Fillmore,  another  member  of  the  committee,  remarked  significant. 
ly,  "Methodism,  as  the  child  of  Providence,  adjusts  herself  as  she  had  a.lvvays  done,  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  ;  she  proposed  that  if  these  fears  (of  the  South,)  proved 
well  grounded,  they  divide  into  lands,  and  go  on  spreading  holiness  through  their  res- 
pective territories ;  the  plan  simply  makes  provision  for  such  "contingency."  Rev. 
Mr.  Finley  could  see  nothing  "urfconslitutional"  in  the  plan.  "The  parties  stood  pre- 
cisely alike — there  was  a  great  gulf  between  them  and  he  wished  there  was  middle  ground 
on  which  both  could  stand.  Mr.  Wesley  separated  the  American  from  the  English 
Church;  the  General  Conference  gave  the  Canada  Conference  liberty  to  do  just  what 
they  noio  proposed  to  do  with  the  South  ;  we  are  now  doing  nothing  more  than  we  did 
then.  Bishop  Ilarnline,  also  of  the  committee,  alluding  to  the  first  resolution,  which 
gives  character  to  all  the  rest,  said,  "the  committee  thought  it  could  not  be  objected  to 
on  the  ground  of  constitutionality.  He  for  one,  would  wish  to  have  his  name  recorded 
affirming  them  to  be  brethren,  if  they  found  they  must  separate.  The  article  referred  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  had  not,  necessarily,  any  connection  with  division  as  agreed  by 
all."  Rev.  Mr.  Porter,  one  of  the  committee,  said,  "the  time  was  coming  whon  separa- 
tion must  take  place.  The  difficulty  was  greater  now  than  it  was  four  years  ago,  and 
would  increase"  Dr.  Winans,  of  the  committee,  declared,  "the  only  proposition  was 
that  they  (S')uth,)  might  have  liberty,  if  necessary,  to  organize  a  separate  Conference, 
and  it  was  important  that  they  should  know  at  an  early  period,  that  they  had  such  liber- 
ty." Finally,  hear  Drs.  Durbin,  Peck,  and  Elliott :  "The  proposition  for  a  peaceful 
separation,  has  already  been  met  by  the  General  Conference,  by  a  vote  which  would 
doubtless  have  been  unanimous  but  for  the  belief  that  some  entertained  of  the  unconsti- 
tutionally of  the  measure;"  thus  declaring  that  the  General  Conference  had  made  what 
was  regarded  by  nearly  all,  as  a  "constitutional"  provision  for  the  separation  of  North 
and  South,  into  two  distinct  ecclesiastical  connections. 

A  recent  perversion  of  the  facts  of  history,  in  the  Western  Christian  Advocate,fis 
worthy  of  notice  in  this  connection.  It  is  broadly  affirmed  that  the  committee,  upon 
Dr.  Capers'  resolutions,  took  the  ground  that  no  division  of  the  Church,  as  to  General 
Conference  jurisdiction,  could  take  place  constitutionally,  and  the  inference  is  thence 
pressed,  that  a  constitutional  separation  of  the  Northern  and  Southern  Conferences, 
could  not  have  been  thought  of  in  the  instance  of  the  plan  finally  adopted  by  the  Con- 
ference. In  reply,  it  will  be  proper  to  observe:  1st.  That  the  plan  of  Dr.  Capers  was 
that  of  an  individual,  and  was  brought  forward  by  the  Dr.  upon  his  own  responsibility, 
without  the  knowledge  or  concurrence  of  the  Southern  Delegations.  It  was  a  proposi- 
tion from  Dr.  Capers  to  the  North  and  South  equally.  The  committee  very  generally 
agreed,  that  the  subject  coming  up  in  this  form,  presented  serious,  if  not  insuperable 
difficulty.  It  must  not  be  overlooked,  that  the  proposition  from  Dr.  Capers  preceded 
the  Southern  declaration,  which  gave  a  new  aspect  to  the  whole  subject.  And  we  now 
state  what  will  be  abundantly  proved  whenever  it  is  necessary,  that  leading  men  of  the 
Majority,  in  and  out  of  the  committee  under  notice,  assured  Southern  Delegates,  in  and 
out  of  the  committee,  that  the  question  of  separation  could  not  be  approached  by  the 
General  Conference,  safely  and  constitutionally,  exwpt  upon  a  declaration  of  griwauct 


110 

by  the  Southern  Delegations,  and  assured  us  if  such  declaration  were  made,  it  would  b« 
in  their  power  to  extend  to  us  the  relief  prayed  for,  that  is,  that  the  Southern  Conferen- 
ces might  be  from  under  the  control  of  the  Northern  Majority — this  being  all  we  want- 
ed. Upon  the  basis  of  this  assurance,  a  brief,  informal,  but  explicit  declaration  was 
presented,  and  the  well  known  committee  of  nine  appointed,  and  instructed  to  report,  if 
practibable,  a  "constitutional  plan"  for  the  "division  of  the  Church."  It  was  too,  to 
be  a  "mutual  and  friendly  division."  The  constitutional  difficulty  as  to  power  and  right, 
was  presumed  to  be  removed  by  the  declaration,  which  placed  the  proposed  separation 
on  the  ground  of  necessity,  as  the  great  objects  of  the  ministry  and  Church  organiza- 
tion could  not,  in  the  South,  be  carried  on  without  it.  The  actual  grounds  of  the  ne- 
cessity being  set  forth  in  the  declaration  of  thirteen  Annual  Conferences,  was  supposed 
to  change  entirely,  the  constitutional  aspects  of  the  question,  and  give  the  committee 
and  Conference  right  and  power  beyond  any  thing  presumed  by  either  party,  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Capers'  resolutions,  and  hence  the  instruction  given  to  report  a  "constitutional 
plan."  It  follows,  therefore:  2nd.  That  any  attempt  to  infer  the  alledged  unconslitu- 
tionality  of  the  plan  adopted,  from  the  opinions  of  the  committee  respecting  the  plan  of 
Dr.  Capers,  is  unfair  and  unauthorized,  in  view  both  of  the  logic  and  the  facts  of  the 
case.  The  grounds  of  action  being  essentially  different  in  the  two  cases,  the  reasons 
and  motives  influencing  men  of  sense,  could  not  have  been  the  same,  and  accordingly 
what  was  deemed  unsafe  and  impracticable  in  the  one,  was  agreed  to  as  safe  and  advi- 
sable in  the  other.  And  the  whole  objection  being  thus  obviated,  the  preceding  reason- 
ing remains  in  all  its  force,  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  plan  of  separation 
as  projected  and  sanctioned  by  the  Majority.  Bishop  Soule,  speaking  of  Finley's  resolu- 
tions, says,  "not  a  doubt  remained  with  me,  that  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  would 
result  in  a  division  of  the  Church."  He  adds,  "measures  were  finally  adopted  by  the 
Conference,  providing  for  a  peaceful  and  equitable  separation  between  the  North  and  the 
South."  Dr.  Olin  says,  "the  provisional  plan  of  the  General  Conference  was  avowedly 
based  on  an  anticipated  necessity  expected  to  result  from  the  state  of  public  senti- 
ment at  the  South,  nnd  from  the  peculiar  relations  of  the  Southern  Church  to  existing 
institutions.  The  only  wish  expressed  or  manifested  was  that  the  two  great  divisions 
into  which  our  Israel  hereafter  must  be  organized,  should  occupy  positions  the  most  fa- 
vorable to  the  discharge  of  their  high  obligations  to  the  world  and  its  Saviour."  This 
is  a  faithful  report  of  what  actually  took  place.  It  is  a  statement  strictly  conformed  to 
the  facts  of  the  case,  and  future  developements  will[sustain  its  truth,  despite  a  thousand 
malignant  editorials  and  other  efforts  vainly  attempting  to  make  it  appear  that  the  South 
was  to  leave  the  Church  as  a  secession.  Every  true  friend  of  Methodism  will  read  the 
following  burning  sentence  from  the  same  pen,  with  prophetic  interest:  "I  shall  look 
upon  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  forever  dishonored— I  shall  look  for  some  signal 
mark  of  the  Divine,  displeasure,  if  after  sufficient  time  has  elapsed,  to  test  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  all  plans  of  compromise,  she  shall  decline  to  adjust  on  equitable  terms,  all  the 
questions  that  must  arise  from  the  separate  organization."  There  is  one  other  view  of 
this  subject,  to  which  we  should  call  attention.  Great  consequence  has  been  attached 
to  an  argument  against  division,  on  the  ground  that  unless  the  Annual  Conferences,  by 
a  three  fourths  vote,  shall  authorize  the  General  Conference,  that  body  has  no  right  or 
power  to  act  at  all  in  the  premises.  This  argument  is  good  for  nothing,  because  it  can- 
not apply,  unless  it  can  be  shown,  that  the  question  of  separation  is  covered  by  the  res- 
trictive rules,  and  as  this  will  not  be  attempted,  it  further  follows  that  it  was  entirely 
and  constitutionally  competent  for  the  Annual  Conferences  to  act  as  they  did,  through 
their  representatives  "in  General  Conference  assembled."  As  the  separation  proposed 


Ill 

is  not  prohibited  by  the  constitution  nor  by  law,  and  the  General  Conference  has  full 
power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  necessary  to  the  common  welfare  of  the  Church, 
if  that  body  believed  separation  necessary  to  such  welfare,  (as  they  must  have  done  or 
would  not  have  provided  for  it,)  the  claim  of  constitutional  right  seems  to  be  a  neces- 
sary inference,  and  thus  strengthens  the  general  argument. 

Moreover,  this  whole  question  as  to  constitutionality,  is  varied  by  the  peculiar  char- 
acter of  its  subject  matter.  Were  it  a  question  of  either  faith  or  morals,  properly, 
(although  not  included  by  the  restrictive  rules)  we  should  be  inclined  to  prefer  (not- 
withstanding constitutional  right)  that  the  Annual  Conferences,  rather  than  their  Dele- 
gates in  General  Conference  assembled,  should  settle  it.  (A  novel  doctrine  or  practice 
not  inconsistent  with  the  "Articles  of  Religion"  or  "General  Rules,"  would  be  of  the 
kind  we  mean.)  But  such  is  not  the  character  of  the  question.  The  true  original  is- 
sue between  the  parties  is,  a  difference  of  opinion,  political  and  religious,  as  to  the  law- 
fulness and  consequent  moral  character  of  a  civil  relation,  created  and  protected  by  the 
supreme  and  municipal  law  of  the  country ;  and  the  right,  further,  of  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  sustain  this  relation,  without  detriment 
to  their  other  relations  and  interests,  whether  as  citizens  or  as  professors  of  Christianity. 
On  this  question  the  Nation  and  the  Church,  as  the  general  rule,  divide  territorially,  as 
the  States  admit  or  exclude  slavery.  The  slave  States  being  a  minority,  and  the  same 
being  true  of  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church,  both  originally  refused  to  leave  this 
question  unsettled,  and  to  be  at  any  time  determined  by  the  Majority,  and  sought  pro- 
tection, the  first  by  the  treaty  provisions  of  the  federal  constitution,  and  the  second, 
by  attempts  from  time  to  time,  as  fully  shown  in  these  pages,  to  procure  the  enactment 
by  the  Church,  of  such  conservative  and  permanent  laws,  as  would  be  most  likely  to 
secure  to  the  South  the  ends  of  social  justice.  As  therefore,  it  is  the  first  and  most 
fundamental  function  of  every  constitution,  to  achieve  the  objects  of  the  organization 
to  which  it  relates,  and  the  moral  unity  and  enlarged  influence  of  the  Church  must  rank 
among  these,  if  it  be  found,  as  no  one  can  doubt,  after  the  solemn  attestation  of  six- 
teen Annual  Conferences,  that  the  course  of  the  Majority,  (being  little  more  than  one 
half  of  the  Church,)  must  necessarily  injure  and  depress  the  Minority,  we  repeat, 
these  things  being  so,  the  right  of  remedy  must  accrue  under  the  constitution,  even 
where  the  consent  of  the  Majority  is  wanting.  We  introduce  this  argument  to  show, 
that  were  the  Church  Norlh  to  adopt  the  malign  advice  of  its  public  organs  and  special 
agents,  and  attempt  to  drive  us  off  as  a  secession,  it  could  not  do  so.  Not  having  vio- 
lated any  law  of  the  Church,  as  even  our  revilers  admit,  and  not  intending  any  cliango 
with  regard  to  its  Faith,  Morals,  or  Discipline,  the  constitution  protects  us  and  we  rest 
secure.  In  the  event  we  are  treated  by  the  North  as  threatened  by  the  conspiracy  of 
the  Press  against  General  Conference  authority  and  Southern  interests,  beside  the 
means  of  redress  left  us,  we  shall  have  the  proud  and  cheering  consciousness  of  high 
vantage-ground  in  being  chargeable  with  no  Punic  stain  in  retreating  from  the  obliga- 
tions of  a  plain  public  engagement,  or  trifling  with  the  sacredness  of  a  grave,  official 
trust.  In  such  a  cause,  and  so  sustained,  we  can  afford  to  suffer. 

The  civil  condition  and  relations  of  the  societies  in  North  America,  are  assigned  by 
Mr.  Wesley  as  the  ground  of  "separation"  between  the  British  and  American  Metho- 
dists. The  same  reason  specifically  was  assigned  in  the  instance  of  the  Canada  "sepa- 
tion."  In  both  these  instances,  the  Church  was  "divided"  by  the  highest  authority  in 
it.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  Declaration,  Protest,  and  Debates,  so  often  alluded 
to,  he  will  find  that  a  precisely  similar  reason  is  urged  as  the  sole,  ground  of  the  sepa- 
ration now  pending  ia  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Cburch.  It  is  asserted,  however,  tha: 


112 

there  is  "no  necessity  of  division,"  and  it  will  be  proper  to  notice  by  whom  and  upon 
what  grounds  this  is  assumed.  Did  the  General  Conference  leave  the  question  of  ne- 
cessity to  be  determined,  as  it  has  been  by  the  dogmatism  and  impertinence  of  the 
Press?  The  "Southern  Conferences"  were  constituted  the  judges  by  express  enact- 
ment and  stipulation  in  the  plan  of  separation.  The  sixteen  Southern  Conferences 
have  decided  the  question  with  unprecedented  unanimity.  The  question  has  been  set- 
tled by  the  tribunal  to  which  the  General  Conference  referred  it,  and  of  course  by  the 
only  one  having  any  right  in  the  premises.  The  "Southern  Conferences"  had  by  con- 
sent and  contract  of  parties,  the  sole  arbitrement  of  the  question.  Any  attempt,  there- 
fore, to  control  the  result  by  Northern  interference,  is  not  merely  a  gratuitous  meddling 
with  the  subject,  but  a  breach  of  good  faith.  Certainly  when  the  General  Conference 
left  the  decision  wholly  and  absolutely  with  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences,  and 
pledged  themselves  to  abide  the  result,  it  was  not  expected  that  the  intrusive  dictation 
of  the  Press  would  thwart  their  purposes,  by  appealing  the  case  to  a  different  tribunal. 
The  defence  of  the  action  of  the  Majority  in  their  course  against  slavery  was  to  be 
expected,  and  is  not  excepted  to  on  the  ground  of  right,  but  the  attempt  as  we  have  ex- 
plained at  length,  to  defend  the  action  of  the  Conference  in  this  case,  and  yet  impugn 
and  stt  it  aside  in  the  other,  although  equally  bound  to  defend  both,  is  such  a  manifest 
abuse  of  official  trust,  such  an  outrage  offered  to  the  good  sense  and  virtue  of  the  ap- 
pointing power,  that  but  for  the  high  state  of  party  feeling  in  relation  to  the  South, 
such  official  malversation  would  not  be  tolerated  for  an  hour.  It  is  really  grateful  to 
be  able  to  turn  from  the  gross  injustice  thus  done,  not  less  to  the  South  than  to  the 
North,  and  attend  to  the  rational  and  manly  decision  of  Dr.  Elliott :  "We  are  persuaded 
distinct  organizations  must  exiat  in  the  nature  of  things,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  that  necessity  and  scripture  principles  will  inevitably 
enforce  them.  We  believe  that  the  unity,  purity,  power,  and  extending  influence  of 
Methodism,  may  be  promoted  by  these  means."  So  thought  Wesley  when  he  set  off 
the  American  societies  as  a  distinct  organization.  So  thought  the  British  Connexion 
in  giving  the  Irish  Conference  distinct  organic  being.  So  thought  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  setting  off  the  Canada  Conference  as  a  distinct  organization.  So 
thought  one  hundred  and  forty  seven  members  of  the  late  General  Conference  against 
twelve,  in  relation  to  the  proposed  Southern  organization.  That  the  right  and  power 
to  declare,  by  consent  of  parties,  one  portion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  an 
independent  and  separate  organization,  with  regard  to  every  other,  have  been  assumed 
and  exercised  by  the  General  Conference,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  whole  Church  as 
constitutional,  can  only  be  doubted  by  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  facts.  No  so- 
phistry can  misconstrue  the  following  resolution  of  the  General  Conference  of  18:28  : 
"Resohed,  That  the  compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual  Conference  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  be,  and  hereby  is  dissolved,  by  mutual 
consent."  If  the  "compact"  between  one  Annual  Conference  and  the  Church,  can  be 
constitutionally  "dissolved"  by  the  General  Conference,  it  can  be  done  in  relation  to 
any  number,  as  the  compact  in  every  instance  is  precisely  the  same.  The  General 
Conference  avows  the  adoption  of  the  above  resolution  in  view  of  a  "separate  Church 
establishment,"  which  'the  Conference  expressly  acknowledges  to  be  (in  prospect)  a 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Bishops  are  requested  to  ordain  a  Bishop  for  the 
new  "Connection,""  so  called  by  the  Conference,  and  no  reasoning  can  invalidate  the 
conclusion  that  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  this  case,  based  upon  the  decla- 
ration and  request  cf  the  C&nada  Conference,  gave  birth  to  the  "Methodist  Episcopal 
Church**  of  Upper-  Caoada-  How  fully  and  forcibly  this  applies  to  the  separation  of 


113 

too  5~Mt;t!>rrn  Confrrenres,  will  lir  sron  by  all.  The  reasons  in  b<>ih  cn«es  originate 
entirely  ia  a  iiec.rs*i'.y  erenied  by  c.ic'd  ralali<>n.<i  am!  i-it-/-es-tn,  and  arc  therefore,  essen- 
tially tlie  s;ime,  so  for  as  principle  is  involved.  But  notwithstanding  all  this  editorial 
dictation,  in  defiance  of  lionerai  Coiiicifiiie  actinn  and  .avowal,  as  we  have  shown,  in 
utter  disregard  of  the  facts  and  the  evidence  in  the  case,  in  penect  cuuieiii^  u;  cneir 
own  glorified  majority  theory,  and  the  men  who  employed  them  as  their  representatives, 
by  electing  them  to  office,  in  defiance  too  of  their  virtual  pledge  to  sustain  the  body  at 
whoso  hands  they  accepted  office  ;  despite  all  these,  if  Editors  could  be  believed,  we 
are  to  be  a  "secession,"  or  else  (unlike  Editors)  submit  to  whatever  the  majority  may 
choose  to  impose  upon  us.  It  would  be  no  difficult  task  to  take  the  leading  postulates 
and  general  reasoning  of  some  of  our  Northern  papers,  and  prove  the  Editors  of  them 
to  be  "seceders"  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  the  full  extent  it  is  possible 
to  believe  what  they  offer  in  the  shape  of  premises  and  conclusions.  By  every  argu- 
ment they  offer,  proving  us  to  be  seceders  because  we  resist  the  will  of  the  Majority, 
they  publish  themselves  as  such,  inasmuch  as  they  are  doing  the  same  thing.  The 
cases  we  know  are  not  exactly  similar,  but  the  circumstances  making  them  differ  are 
in  our  favor,  as  elsewhere  shown.  We  gave  notice  to  the  Majority,  by  formal  protest, 
before  the  action  of  the  Conference  wasjinal,  that  we  would  not  submit.  Did  our  Ed- 
itorial Nullifiers  of  General  Conference  action,  cither  before  or  after  their  election, 
inform  the  Conference  that  they  should  resist  its  will?  Had  this  been  so,  who  does  not 
know  that  no  one  of  them  could  have  been  elected?  Holding  the  principles  they  now 
avow,  did  not  honor  and  fair  dealing  require  that  they  should  do  so?  If  they  have 
since  changed  their  principles,  how  can  they  honorably  continue  at  a  post  they  know 
they  could  not  have  occupied,  had  such  change  been  known,  or  rather  with  the  views  and 
principles  they  now  avow?  Is  there  no  abuse  of  privilege,  no  betrayal  of  trust  in  all 
this?  Beside,  these  men  ore  not  constitutional  officers  ;  they  are  mere  special  Agents, 
holding  office  temporarily,  while  the  Southern  Conferences  are  constitutional  contract- 
ing parties  in  the  organic  structure  of  the  Church,  and  as  such,  have  rights  which  no 
sensible  man  will  think  of  in  connection  with  special  temporary  Agents.  But  further: 
these  Agents,  although  unknown  to  the  constitution,  and  as  such,  constituting  no  part 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  so  usurped  right  and  magnified  their  official 
consequence,  as  to  declare  in  substance,  a  law  of  the  General  Conference  null  and  void, 
by  various  attempts  to  induce  the  Annual  Conference  and  the  Church  not  to  regard  it  as 
binding,  but  to  treat  it  as  a  "nullity,"  and  promising  indemnity  at'thesame  time,  in 
the  event  of  such  resistance.  Let  the  Bishops  and  General  Conference  give  their  opin- 
ion of  such  conduct:  "we  regard  it  as  of  unhappy  tendency,  that  either  individual  mem- 
bers or  official  bodies  should  employ  terms  and  pass  resolutions  of  censure  and  con- 
demnation on  their  brethren,  and  on  public  officers  and  official  bodies,  over  whose  ac- 
tions they  have  no  legitimate  jurisdiction."  What  is  the  jurisdiction  of  our  censors  in 
the  case  under  notice?  We  have  said,  were  they  constitutional  officers,  it  would  be 
different.  As  it  is,  they  have  no  rights  except  such  as  they  derive  from  those  who  em- 
ploy them.  But  for  the  authority  they  defy  and  set  at  nought,  they  would  have  no 
right  to  speak  at  all — would  not  be  found  indeed  in  the  places  they  occupy.  How  en- 
tirely different  our  position  is  we  have  shown.  We  exercised  tho  constitutional  righ  t 
of  a  Minority,  and  refused  submission  from  the  moment  the  wrong  was  inflicted.  We 
demanded  reparation  on  the  ground  of  law  and  constitutional  right.  When  the  Ma- 
jority said  they  could  not  recede,  we  then  asked  for  a  division  of  General  Conference  ju- 
risdiction, that  in  future,  as  a  large  substantive  portion  of  the  great  Methodist  family, 
we  might  not.be  re-subjected  to  simikr  treatment  and  difficulty  ;  and  this  was  thought 
15 


114 

so  reasonable  by  the  Majority,  they  authorized  us  to  do  as  we  proposed.  Connect,  then, 
the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Minority  with  this  authorization  of  the  Majority,  and 
it  will  be  seen  we  do  not  lack  warrant  in  the  course  we  have  pursued. 

Among  the  thousand  difficulties  interposed  to  deter  the  Southern  Conferences  from 
action,  their  right  to  meet  in  Contention  according  to  appointment,  is  called  in  ques- 
tion, and  some  no  doubt,  have  felt  the  force  of  the  objection.  The  right  in  the  case 
connects  with  the  Southern  Conferences  as  such.  The  legitimate  right  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  meet  and  deliberate,  and  its  authority  to  act  conclusively  in  the  premises,  result 
from  the  circumstances  rendering  it  necessary,  and  the  manner  of  its  projection  and 
getting  up.  As  means  to  an  end  it  was  in  the  contemplation  of  all,  when  the  plan  of 
separation  was  adopted.  By  authority,  the  necessity  of  division  was  to  be  judged  of 
by  the  Southern  Conferences,  not  the  people.  The  Majority  did  not  propose  to  consult 
the  people.  It  was  the  Southern  Ministry  in  their  address  to  the  Methodists  of  the 
South,  who  first  brought  out  the  idea  and  adopted  it  as  a  principle  of  action,  to  confer 
with  the  people  fully  and  unreservedly.  We  knew  the  people  had  no  constitutional 
right  to  decide  and  determine,  as  such  right  is  precluded  both  by  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  the  repeated  declaration  of  the  General  Conference.  Still  we  determined  to 
consult  them,  and  not  act  in  contravention  of  their  wishes  and  interests.  They  have 
decided  the  question  as  the  action  of  their  representatives  assumed  they  would.  Much 
the  greater  proportion  of  those  who  dissent  from  the  South  are  upon  the  border,  and 
the  larger  number  of  these  do  so  because  the  disguises  and  misrepresentations  making 
up  the  sum  of  their  information  on  the  subject,  have  led  them  to  think  only  of  a  "se- 
cession from  the  Church,"  instead  of  a  "constitutional  division  of  the  Church,"  as  ex- 
pressly resolved  by  the  General  Conference.  And  so  soon  as  these  perversions  of  truth 
and  fact  are  rightly  understood,  multitudes  who  now  hesitate  will  hesitate  no  longer. 
The  motives  and  intended  effect  of  these  misstatements,  are  becoming  more  and  more 
intelligible  every  day,  and  the  result  is,  individuals  and  societies  are  changing  ground, 
even  after  formal  committal,  and  falling  in  where  they  properly  belong.  And  it  is  no 
disparagement  of  character  or  claim,  to  suggest  what  is  morally  certain  to  occur,  both 
as  regards  individuals  and  societies,  that  even  after  an  appeal  to  the  Convention  against 
division,  its  necessity  will  be  felt  and  sanctioned  by  the  remonstrants.  Meanwhile,  it 
is  to  be  expected,  that  there  are  in  the  Southern  States,  and  especially  upon  the  border, 
anti-slavery  men  and  abolitionists,  who  cannot  be  thought  of  as  ever  likely  to  coalesce 
with  the  South,  and  their  number  may  be  considerable.  Northerners  and  foreigners  not 
a  few,  with  Old  and  New  England  and  free  State  principles  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
as  well  as  others,  native  citizens,  will  dissent  from  the  policy  of  a  Southern  organiza- 
tion. Nothing  else  could  be  expected.  A  similar  state  of  things,  we  know  equally 
well,  will  be  found  upon  the  Northern  side  of  the  border,  and  all  without  affecting  the 
main  question.  When  the  General  Conference  acted  on  the  subject,  it  was  well  known 
and  perfectly  understood,  that  the  Southern  Conferences  would  of  necessity,  have  to 
meet  in  Convention  before  a  Southern  organization  could  possibly  take  place,  and  the 
Convention  will  accordingly  meet  under  the  full  and  obvious  sanction  of  the  General 
Conference.  The  General  Conference  explicitly  authorized  the  Southern  Conferences 
to  form  a  separate  organization  if  they  saw  proper,  and  all  means  necessary  to  such  a 
result  have  of  course,  the  official  approval  of  the  General  Conference,  and  hence  the 
right  and  authority  with  which  the  Convention  will  meet.  Beside,  sixteen  Southern 
Conferences  and  about  two  thirds  of  the  Northern  Conferences  have  (the  former  direct- 
ly and  the  latter  indirectly)  given  their  sanction  to  the  Convention.  Whether  the 
Convention  then  shall  proceed  to  organize  a  separate  jurisdiction,  as  contemplated  by 


115 

the  General  Conference  or  not,  the  holding  of  the  Convention  will  be  a  regular  Church 
procedure,  accredited  in  proper  form  by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church,  and  in  no 
sense  whatever  an  irregular  revolutionary  movement.  Several  of  the  Northern  Con- 
ferences not  voting  for  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  at  their  recent  sessions, 
have  intimated  their  intention  to  do  so,  should  the  South  resolve  to  organize.  And  it  is 
confidently  believed  that  not  more  than  three  or  four  of  all  the  Northern  Conferences, 
if  a  single  one,  will  finally  endorse  the  doctrine  of  the  Northern  Commissioners  for  the 
division  of  the  Church  funds,  that  we  are  not  entitled  to  a  pro  rata  share  of  them,  un- 
less we  consent  that  what  the  General  Conference  calls  'a  constitutional  division  of  the 
Church,"  is  really  nothing  but  a  ' 'secession"  from  it!  We  shall  see.  The  South  did 
not  expect,  did  not  even  wish  to  be  called  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Uni- 
ted States.  They  had  no  desire  or  purpose  to  usurp  or  supplant,  in  this  respect.  It 
was  very  generally  agreed  among  the  Southern  Delegates,  that  if  allowed  to  separate,  as 
the  General  Conference  authorized,  with  their  just  share  of  the  Book  Concern  and 
Chartered  Fund,  and  holding  their  own  Church  property,  they  would  be  known  as  "the 
Southern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  They  were  only  anxious  to  preclude  all  idea 
of  secession  from  the  Church,  or  departure  of  any  kind  from  the  great  principles  of 
American  Methodism.  Securing  this  last  result,  we  are  by  no  means  ambitious  as  to 
title,  or  the  name  by  which  we  are  to  be  known.  We  intend  to  be  understood,  howev- 
er, both  as  it  regards  our  principles  and^  action.  If  denounced  and  defamed  as  a  "se- 
cession," by  the  Church  North,  as  we  have  been  by  Northern  Church  Editors  and  oth- 
ers, it  will  remain  to  be  decided  by  other  men  and  other  methods,  what  has  essentially 
constituted  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  since  1784,  and  in  what  the  South  has  de- 
parted from  it.  The  North  will  not  be  permitted  to  settle  this  question,  any  more  than 
the  South.  The  party  adhering  to  law  and  usage  will  be  the  true  Church,  whether 
North  or  South,  Majority  or  Minority.  We  cannot  be  unapprised  of  the  united  effort 
of  partizan  leaders  and  portions  of  the  Church,  from  Maine  to  Illinois,  to  produce  the 
conviction  and  spread  the  alarm  that  the  South  is  about  to  become  a  "secession."  And 
among  the  means  employed,  is  the  rallying  shout  for  the  union  of  the  Church  by  the 
very  men  who  dug  its  grave.  Herod  East,  and  Pilate  West,  the  abolitionist  and  con- 
servative, have  simulated  the  sacrifice  of  dislike  and  enmity  upon  this  fancied  altar 
of  their  own  erection,  and  in  hope  of  realizing  the  purposes  for  which  they  "made 
friends;"  are  likely  to  relish  with  no  common  zest,  the  "feast  of  charity"  which  is  to 
give  to  oblivion  the  "bitter  herbs"  of  their  former  intercourse,  or  it  may  be  want  of  it. 
The  South  never  thought  of  a  separate  organization,  until  it  became  necessary  to  pre- 
serve Methodism  as  it  was  before  the  innovations  of  the  last  General  Conference.  It 
was  the  only  remedy  left  us  for  correcting  the  effects  of  an  abuse  of  trust  by  the  Ma- 
jority, and  for  doing  this  we  are  subjected  to  the-abuse  and  villification  of  exasperated 
partisans,  as  "dividers"  of  the  Church  and  "seceders"  from  it.  Do  our  enemies  hope 
to  divert  attention  from  the  true  issue  by  a  resort  to  such  methods  of  vague  ad  captan- 
dum  imputation,  unsupported  by  the  suffrage  of  facts  or  the  semblance  of  truth?  We 
believe  we  have  already  submitted  a  sufficient  amount  of  evidence  to  prepare  the  reader 
to  determine,  with  which  party  originated  the  necessity  of  division,  and  to  whom  right- 
fully belong  the  epithets  "divisionists,  seceders,  &c.,"  so  liberally  applied  to  us.  The 
Majority  have  earned  the  distinction  at  no  common  cost,  and  history  will  see  that  they 
are  not  deprived  of  the  honors  they  have  won. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  recur  to  a  former  topic :  It  has  been  urged  with  imposing  em- 
phasis, that  the  division  of  jurisdiction  proposed,  will  tend  to  a  dissolution  of  the  po- 
litical Union  of  the  States,  North  and  South.  In  our  judgment,  however,  its  direct 


116 

tendency  will  be  to  prevent  it.  That  the  controversy  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
for  the  last  twelve  years,  has  tended  to  such  a  result,  f«\v  will  doubt;  and  all  og-itation 
of  the  question  of  slavery,  must,  of  necessity,  continue  to  do  so.  If  we  do  not  sepa- 
rate, it  is  morally  certain  we  shall  have  nothing  but  agitation  on  the  subject.  In  the 
ex'ent  of  a  separation,  after  a  brief  border,  and  perhaps  some  intestine  war,  the  fair 
probability  is,  we  shall  have  peace,  and  the  business  of  agitation  subside  entirely,  or 
at  least  nearly  so.  The  rights  and  feelings  of  the  parties  will  reciprocally  command, 
and  bring  about  a  state  of  comity  and  good  feeling  infinitely  more  favorable  to  the  sta- 
bility of  the  National  Union  than  the  existing  state  of  things,  and  the  exciting  agita- 
tion consequent  upon  it.  In  any  event,  should  the  Northern  abolition  crusade  continue 
and  gain  strength  in  its  political  aspects,  the  safety  of  the  Union  must  be  endangered 
in  proportion,  and  no  man  can  hide  the  threatened  evil  from  his  eyes.  It  must  be  seen 
and  looked  forward  to.  As  the  friends  then,  and  uniform  supporters  of  the  National 
Union,  what  are  we,  as  Southern  Methodists,  called  upon  to  do?  Obviously  to  select 
that  course  of  policy  and  action  which  will  be  best  calculated  to  repress  abolition  ex- 
citement and  agitation,  and  so  far  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  concerned,  if 
correctly  represented  by  the  Majority  in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  the  course 
there  indicated  is  to  be  persisted  in,  we  regard  separation  as  the  only  mode  of  doing  it. 
The  charge  insinuated  against  the  South,  in  at  least  one,  if  not  more  of  our  General 
Conference  organs,  that  they  are  disposed  to  favor  the  views  and  designs  of  men  whose 
political  course  and  purposes  aim  at  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  that  they  are  pro- 
bably acting  in  concert  with  them,  is  as  truthless  and  unfounded  as  it  is  insidious  and 
dishonorable.  One  of  the  grave  and  influential  motives  which  determined  the  South  to 
protest  against  the  proceedings  of  the  North,  was  to  prevent  an  impression  South,  that 
a  Northern  anti-slavery  majority  might  trespass  upon  Southern  rights  to  any  extent 
they  felt  inclined,  without  resistance  by  the  Southern  Ministry,  and  thus  increase  the 
difficulties  already  existing  between  the  free  and  slave  holding  States.  It  was,  and  con- 
tinues to  be,  the  belief  of  the  Southern  Delegates,  that  nothing  but  a  generous  and 
manly  adherence  to  the  compromise  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  can  possibly  perpetuate  a  union  originally  based  upon  it.  And  believing  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  North  was  infringing  that  compromise,  by  ecclesi- 
astical action  in  violation  of  political  right,  they  knew  existing  evils  in  the  South 
would  be  greatly,  if  not  hopelessly  aggravated,  did  they  allow  themselves  to  become 
unresisting  parties  to  the  encroachment  complained  of.  And  taking  the  same  view  of 
both  political  and  church  parties,  they  were  led  to  look  upon  a  separation  of  General 
Conference  jurisdiction  as  most  likely  to  prevent,  as  far  as  the  Church  was  concerned, 
final  and  incurable  disunion  in  the  one  and  the  other.  One  thing  is  certain,  unless  ri- 
gid adherence  to  law  and  right  is  proof  of  an  attempt  at  disunion,  the  South  needs  no 
vindication  against  the  charge.  And  it  is  equally  certain,  that  by  how  far  infringe- 
ment of  law  and  right,  as  shown  in  these  pages,  tends  to  disunion  in  Church  and  State, 
to  the  same  extent  are  those  who  bring  the  charge  against  the  South,  guilty  of  it  them- 
selves. We  have  seen  how  the  compromise  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  great  national  compact,  is  being  infringed  and  set  aside  by  abolition  and  anti-slave- 
ry propagandism.  We  have  seen  how  the  corresponding  legislation  of  the  Church  has 
been  superseded  by  the  tactics  of  a  loose  and  reckless  expediency,  and  such  defection 
from  law  and  right,  and  failure  to  maintain  and  assert  the  claims  of  relative  and  social 
justice,  will  explain  to  men  of  sense  and  candor  at  whose  door  lies  the  charge  of  un- 
dermining the  foundations,  and  invading  the  sanctity  of  the  National  Union.  The 
Bishops  say,  in  their  address,  in  1840,  and  might  have  repeated  it  with  equal  truth  io 


117 

1844,  "at  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  its  ab- 
olition, was  extensively  discussed,  and  vigorous  exertions  made,  to  effect  new  legisla- 
tion upon  it.  We  regret  that  we  are  compelled  to  say,  that  in  some  of  the  Northern 
nnd  Eastern  Conferences,  in  contravention  of  your  Christian  and  pastoral  counsel,  and 
our  best  efforts  to  carry  it  into  effect,  the  subject  has  been  agitated  in  such  forms,  and 
in  such  a  spirit  as  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church."  Would  to  God  the  Church  of 
our  common  love  had  learned  the  lesson  in  time,  before  it  was  too  late  to  prevent  the 
calamity  already  upon  us,  that  whenever  the  Bible  ceases  to  be  the  deep,  and  broad,  and 
one  foundation  of  our  religious  convictions,  all  is  unsafe  and  in  danger,  because  at  the 
mercy  of  unbridled  fanutacism  !  Who,  then,  are  the  true  "divisionists"  in  this  contro- 
versy? Will  not  the  common  sense  of  the  Church  and  the  world  decide  that  those 
with  whom,  or  rather  connected  with  whose  conduct,  originated  the  necessity  of  divis- 
ion, are  the  persons  or  party  really  entitled  to  the  distinction,  and  exclusively  account- 
able for  the  result]  That  it  was  the  Northern  party  who  took  new  ground  upon  the 
slave  question,  we  have,  as  we  think,  clearly  proved  in  this  discussion.  That  they 
took  ground  equally  new  and  untenable,  on  the  Episcopal  question,  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  show  in  the  sequel.  That  they,  and  not  the  South,  have  departed  from  law 
and  order,  we  think  susceptible  of  the  clearest  demonstration.  That  they  have  recent- 
ly manifested  a  most  striking  proclivity  to  change,  a  prurient  appetence  for  innovation, 
will  scarcely  admit  of  doubt.  How  far  such  mental  and  moral  habitudes  may  be  char- 
acteristic of  the  North,  rather  than  the  South,  we  shall  not  take  upon  ourselves  to  de- 
termine, but  leave  them  to  verify  or  disprove  the  statement  of  Robertson,  the  Histori- 
an, with  regard  to  the  good  old  stock,  their  ancestral  types. :  "from  the  first  institution 
of  the  company  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  its  members  seem  to  have  been  animated  with 
a  spirit  of  innovation  in  civil  policy  as  well  as  in  religion  ;  and  by  the  habit  of  reject- 
ing established  usages  in  the  one,  they  were  prepared  for  deviating  from  them  in  the 
other."  Connected  with  the  supposed  tendencies  in  question,  we  have  seen  what  has 
been  the  influence  of  interest  and  policy.  A  Northern  Clergyman  says,  "the  different 
physical  features  and  agricultural  productions  of  the  South  and  North  have  more  than 
the  force  or  absence  of  proper  moral  feeling,  ba'nished  slavery  from  the  one,  and  per- 
petuated it  in  the  other.  Had  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  or  even  New 
England,  produced  cotton,  rice,  indigo,  and  sugar,  it  is  not  improbable  slavery  would 
have  continued  in  these  States,  and  increased  its  numbers  here  to  this  very  hour." 
Many  of  the  first  men  of  the  North  have  expressed  similar  opinions,  and  proved  their 
sincerity  by  the  magnanimity  of  their  conduct. 

If  the  Church  be  a  unit,  in  the  sense  insisted  upon  in  this  controversy,  not  only  one, 
but  indivisible,  it  must,  of  necessity,  by  means  of  such  mystic  unity,  be  connected 
with  slavery,  in  all  its  sections,  in  New  York  and  Boston  as  well  as  Charleston  and 
New  Orleans.  If  that  unity,  as  has  been  contended,  turns  mainly  upon-the  Traveling 
Ministry,  as  holding  and  exercising  the  governing  power  of  the  Church,  it  follows,  of 
course,  that  the  whole  ministry,  ?o  far  as  it  is  a  unit,  is  connected  with  slavery,  be- 
cause slave  holders  are  found  both  in  its  own  ranks  and  throughout  a  large  extent  of 
its  pastoral  charges.  Who  can  forget  with  what  revolting  horror  the  frightened  North 
prayed  that  slavery  might  not  be  "returned  and  rolled  back"  upon  them.  But  what 
meant  this  devout  deprecation?  Had  it  really  any  meaning  at  all?  Slavery  returned — 
rolled  back  upon  the  North,  without  adding  a  solitary  human  being  to  the  number  of 
either  slaves  or  masters  !  And  what  makes  the  matter  still  more  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood, all  this  evil  befalls  the  North  without  any  change  even  of  relation  in  the  instance 
of  any  one  of  all  the  thousands  concerned!  Plainly,  however,  Bishop  Andrew  musfoiot 


118 

go  North,  and  so  we  say  too.  But  in  all  his  constitutional  relations,  as  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  he  is  North  as  well  as  South.  He  is  Bishop  there,  by 
right,  and  was  so  declared  by  Northern  votes  in  May  last.  His  official  jurisdiction, 
by  consent  and  decree  of  the  Majority,  slave  holder  though  he  be,  extends  to  every  Con- 
ference, District,  Circuit,  Station,  Church,  Pulpit,  Fireside,  and  Closet.  He  is  Bishop 
of  the  whole  North,  by  laio  and  right.  To  say  he  rightfully  sustains  the  relation,  but 
is  not  allowed  to  perform  its  duties,  only  makes  the  matter  worse.  The  reason  of  the 
result  is  not  found  in  the  fitness  of  things.  If  it  be  said  he  is  merely  requested  not  to 
perform  its  duties,  it  is  still  worse,  for  it  is  left  to  the  Bishop  himself  to  say  whether 
he  will  discharge  the  obligations  of  a  trust,  which  law,  and  the  vows  of  office  require 
shall  be  discharged  with  unrelaxing  fidelity.  The  general  evil  complained  of,  is  in- 
creased too,  by  another  view  of  the  subject.  How  many  Northern  men,  not  a  few  of 
whom  are  now  abolitionists  and  anti-slavery  agitators,  have  been  ordained  by  Bishop 
Andrew  during  the  last  nine  years,  and  since  his  connection  with  slavery,  and  have  thus 
become  the  medium  through  which  the  evil  has  been  returned  and  rolled  back  upon  the 
North!  What  is  to  be  done  in  this  case!  If  there  has  been  defilement,  how  is  it  to  be 
got  rid  of?  What  would  be  the  effect  of  the  re-imposition  of  hands  by  an  Abolition 
Bishop!  Will  it  be  tried!  But  again,  the  Majority  claim  Episcopal  power  for  the 
General  Conference.  According  to  the  traditions  of  1844,  they  are  the  ordainers  and 
administrators,  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Bishops,  as  their  mere  agents,  removable  at  will, 
and  as  such,  the  General  Conference,  North  and  South,  are  annually,  and  have  been  for 
half  a  century,  ordaining  slave  holders,  and  recognizing  the  scriptural  lawfulness  of 
the  evil  of  slavery,  in  all  the  forms  and  relations  of  church  administration,  and  hence, 
connection  with  slavery  in  another  form ;  and  what,  we  ask,  is  to  be  the  remedy  in 
this  case!  Has  it  been  duly  considered  at  the  North,  to  what  extent  the  entire  Episco- 
pacy is  connected  with  slavery,  by  annually  ordaining,  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
Church,  scores  of  slave  holders,  and  sending  them  out  in  the  name  of  God  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  and  exercise  pastoral  supervision  in  the  various  fields  of  Church  enterprise! 
In  view  of  this  multiform  connection  with  slavery,  what  will  the  Church  next  attempt 
North! 

The  plan  now  seems  to  be,  to  drive  off  the  South  as  a  secession.  But  this  cannot  be, 
as  we  have  seen,  without  subverting  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  and  to  do 
this,  is  to  destroy  the  existing  government  of  the  Church.  We  know  many  Northern 
men  who  are  trembling  at  the  audacity  of  the  experiment.  They  perceive  the  effect 
must  recoil  upon  the  North.  It  is  perceived  that  if  they  nullify  the  action  of  the  last 
Genera]  Conference,  that  of  the  next  may  be  nullified  in  like  manner,  no  matter  to  what 
it  may  relate;  and  hence,  an  interminable  train  of  evils,  tending  to  the  overthrow  of 
all  government.  If,  for  the  good  and  sufficient  cause  we  have  shown,  the  Southern 
movement  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case  be  regarded  by  the  North  as  so  extremely  danger- 
ous, why  is  it,  that  in  an  attempt  to  correct  our  error,  they  commit  a  precisely  similar 
one,  with  the  manifest  disadvantage  against  themselves,  of  not  having  anything  like 
the  same  indemnifying  reasons  for  their  action. 

But  we  are  sagely  told  the  General  Conference  only  authorized  a  "friendly"  separa- 
tion. By  "mutual  and  friendly  division,"  was  certainly  not  meant,  as  Editors  and  oth- 
ers contend,  that  any  manifestation  of  improper  feeling,  North  or  South,  would  vitiate 
the  contract,  and  "nullify"  the  official  action  of  the  General  Conference,  out  simply 
that  the  separation,  upon  fixed  terms  and  specified  conditions,  was  to  bemutually  agreed 
to,  and  ratified  by  the  parties  respectively,  without  a  resort  to  revolutionary  party  vio- 
lence. No  man,  asleep  or  awake,  ever  dreamed  that  the  ordinary  excitement  usually 


119 


attendant  upon  a"controversy  involving  the  passions  and  interests  of  millions,  could 
render  null  and  void  the  obligations  of  a  plain  contract,  deliberately  entered  into  by  the 
parties.  If  the  parties  have  been  out  of  temper,  and  have  displayed  bad  passions,  it  is 
to  be  regretted  certainly,  but  cannot  affect  the  contract  between  them.  It  was  the  im- 
possibility of  living  together  in  harmony  which  led  to  the  agreement  to  separate,  and 
to  urge  the  necessary  effects  of  such  want  of  harmony,  in  vitiation  of  the  contract,  is 
too  preposterous  to  be  thought  of.  Even  heaven  requires  us  to  J'live  peaceably  with  all 
men,"  in  view  of  the  exception  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  so  with  some. 

It  may  be  the  Protest  misapprehended  the  "sense"  of  the  General  Conference  as  to 
the  judicial  or  merely  advisory  character  of  the  proceedings  in  Bishop  Andrews' case. 
What  else  could  be  expected  when  the  Majority  obstinately  continue  to  disagree  among 
themselves,  and  as  a  party,  have  not  yet  decided  what  they  meant.  The  Bishops,  in 
their  address  of  the  30th  May,  understood  the  action  proposed  by  Finley's  resolution, 
as  an  adjudication,  a  judicial  proceeding.  Both  before  and  after  it  had  passed,  the 
South  understood  it  as  having  the  force  of  a  mandatory  order.  Take  the  mooted  form 
of  expression  as  elsewhere  and  otherwise  used  by  the  same  body,  and  what  is  the  in- 
ference authorized]  "Resohed,  That  it  is  'the  sense1  of  this  General  Conference,  that 
the  vote  of  Saturday  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  be  understood  as  advisory  only." 
What  is  meant]  Plainly,  ordered  that  it  is  the  judgment,  &c.  "Resohed,  as  the  sense 
of  this^Conference.  that  Bishop  Andrew's  name  stand  in  the  Minutes,  Hymnbook,  and 
Discipline  as  formerly" — that  is,  undeniably,  ordered  that,  &c.,  nothing  advisory  about 
it.  '•'Resohed,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference,  that  the  Church  now 
stands,  in  relation  to  the  testimony  of  colored  persons,  as  it  did  before  the  General 
Conference  Jof  1840."  The  only  and  obvious  meaning  is,  ordered,  &c.  Resohed, 
That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference,  that  paragraph,  &c.,  stand,  &c. — that 
is,  ordered,  not  advised.  "It  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  sense  of  this  General  Confer- 
ence, that  J.  V.  Potts,  be  restored,  &c."  In  all  these  instances,  the  form  of  expression 
used  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case  is  mandatory,  and  it  is  not  used  in  an  advisory  sense,  in 
any  instance  upon  the  Journals  of  1840  or  1844.  What  then  is  the  presumption  crea- 
ted] Is  it  not  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  the  South]  The  Protest  proceeded  upon 
the  assumption  that  all  application  of  law  or  its  principles,  is  necessarily  judicial  in  its 
character,  whether  such  in  form  or  not,  and  that  if  conduct  be  censured  in  view  of  Jaw, 
by  a  tribunal  having  cognizance  of  the  case,  it  is  a  judicial  act.  Finley's  preamble 
distinctly  charges  a  violation  of  law,  and  his  resolution  is  a  judicial  judgment  follow- 
ing upon  the  charge.  There  is  a  formal  indictment  and  a  specific  finding.  Disability 
in  consequence,  is  inflicted  on  Bishop  Andrew,  and  reaches  him  in  the  shape  of  pennlty. 
They  gave  him  a  parchment,  declaring,  that  in  their  judgment,  God  had  called  him  to 
the  work  and  office  of  a  Bishop.  They  give  notice  in  their  proceedings  against  him, 
that  for  specific  reasons,  they  have  seen  proper  to  decide  that  he  ought  not  to  do  the 
work  appropriate  to  his  office,  and  he  is,  therefore,  punished,  a  thousand  denials  and 
disclaimers  notwithstanding.  If  we  grant,  however,  that  the  joint  resolve  of  abolition 
and  anti-slavery,  known  as  Finley's,  was  but  advisory,  it  does  not  affect  in  any  mate- 
rial sense,  the  reasoning  of  the  Protest,  for  the  character  of  the  prosecution  does  not 
essentially,  by  any  means,  turn  upon  that  of  the  decision,  and  the  Protest  principally 
discusses  the  general  movement.  If  we  knew  the  true  position  of  the  North,  we  would 
meet  it,  but  we  do  not.  Dr.  Bond  at  first  took  great  care  to  show  the  famous  resolution 
advisory  ;  subsequently,  he  has  obviously  based  his  reasoning  upon  its  mandatory  force, 
as  any  one  can  see  and  show  by  his  editorials.  The  New  England  organ  regards  the 
resolution  as  a  mandamus.  Dr.  Elliott,  in  the  Reply,  says  it  was  mere  advice.  In  his 


120  '  | 

paper,  however,  he  demolishes  the  Reply,  and  says  the  resolution  has  all  the  force  of 
Jaw.  And  a  score  of  similar  contradictions  and  cross  opinions,  from  the  same  party, 
might  be  pointed  out  if  necessary.  We  have  seen  that  the  Reply  says  Bishop  Andrew 
was  not  tried — that  the  proceeding1  against  him  was  not  judicial — was  not  punitive  ; 
that  he  was  not  legally  suspended.  Now  admit  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  not  tried  in 
due  form — that  the  proceeding  against  him  was  not  judicial  pursuant  to  law  and  right — 
that  he  was  not  punished  in  any  sense  known  to  law  and  usage — that  he  was  not  sub- 
jected to  legal  suspension  in  any  allowable  sense;  still  it  does  not  follow  that  the  state- 
ment of  the  Reply  is  true  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  Bishop  Andrew  was  irregularly 
tried.  He  was  informally  subjected  to  judicial  process,  and  judicial  disability  being 
the  result,  he  was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  punished.  The  nature  of  his  punish- 
ment is  denned  by  his  Judges;  he  is  to  "desist"  from  the  exercise  of  his  functions, 
that  is,  (nothing  else  can  be  made  of  it,)  he  is  suspended,  and  the  question  next  arises, 
how  far  the  suspension  was  constructively  removed  or  modified  by  Mitchell's  resolu- 
tions. When  formally  moved  to  do  so,  the  Conference  refused  to  declare  the  resolution 
advisory.  They  refused  to  adopt  their  own  report,  made  by  special  order,  a  prominent 
feature  of  which  was,  the  advisory  character  of  the  resolution.  Utterly  at  variance 
among  themselves,  as  to  what  they  meant  then,  or  might  afterwards  find  it  convenient 
to  mean,  how  can  it  be  expected  that  others  should  understand  them]  Refusing  to  say 
or  admit  that  the  resolution  was  simple  advice,  when  gravely  called  upon  to  explain 
their  meaning,  did  they  not  officially  authorize  the  alternate  construction  that  the  sen- 
tence was  mandatory,  or  that  they  deemed  a  resort  to  verbal  equivocation  necessary  to 
accomplish  the  purposes  they  had  in  view?  It  is  contended  the  "dignity"  of  the  body 
would  have  been  lowered  by  explanation.  In  what  way  it  was  asserted  by  failing  to 
express  themselves  intelligibly,  even  to  their  own  party,  will  probably  be  as  inobvious 
to  many,  as  the  meaning  of  the  resolution  itself.  What  is  most  extraordinary,  how- 
ever, is  the  fact,  that  the  Majority  are  as  far  from  agreeing  among  themselves  now  as 
they  were  ten  months  ago.  As  a  party,  they  refused  to  explain,  and  so  far  as  individ- 
uals have  explained  for  them,  they  have  affirmed  and  denied — said  and  unsaid  ;  their 
yea  has  been  nay  and  their  nay  yea.  One  man,  one  class  of  men  affirmed  Bishop  An- 
drew was  blameless  ;  without  reproach,  and  must  not  be  censured  because  he  had  vio- 
lated no  law  or  rule  of  the  Church.  Others  said  he  had  acted  in  "bad  faith"— "dishon- 
orably"— "was  a  dishonored  man,"  and  guilty  of  "gross  immorality  ;"  and  yet  these 
very  men,  one  and  all,  under  the  cohesive  influence  of  party  combination,  voted  for  the 
same  thing,  and  went  for  the  same  measures;  voted  both  for  Finley's  resolution  and 
Mitchell's  explanation;  some  declared  the  former  mandatory  and  others  advisory.  One 
half  unite  in  saying,  if  the  Bishop  exercise  his  functions,  he  is  responsible  for  disobe- 
dience to  the  express  will  of  the  Conference,  the  other  say  no,  he  will  only  be  held  ac- 
countable for  not  deferring  to  advice.  Both  agree  in  refusing  to  say  he  shall  work,  and 
are  equally  united  in  refusing  to  say  he  shall  not,  and  all,  it  seems,  are  unanimous  in 
the  purpose,  that  whether  he  shall  work  or  not,  it  shall  amount  to  the  same  thing. 
Facing  the  North,  they  all  declare  they  cannot  and  will  not  have  a  slave  holding  Bishop, 
and  turning  to  the  South,  they  instantly  determine  that  they  have  and  will  have  one. 
They  refuse  to  request  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  and  then  turn  round  and  blame  him 
for  not  doing  what  they  thought  it  improper  to  request  of  him.  They  order  an  expla- 
nation of  the  whole  affair  by  several  of  their  most  distinguished  men,  each  a  host  in 
himself,  as  it  regards  character,  learning,  and  influence,  and  then  refuse  to  adopt  it. 
They  direct  the  argument  and  opinions  of  Drs.  Durbin,  Peck,  and  Elliott  to  be  spread 
upon  their  Journals  without  official  sanction,  and  yet  ostensibly  as  the  judgment  of  the 


121 

Conference.  Take  then,  the  action  of  the  Conference  upon  Finlev's  resolution,  and  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  positions  and  reasoning  of  the  Protest  are  fully  sustained.  And 
turning  to  Mitchell's  resolutions,  giving  a  new  aspect  to  the  whole  subject  by  addition- 
al and  different  action,  and  it  will  appear  equally  clear  that  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew 
have  acted  in  perfect  conformity  with  the  only  intelligible  position  the  Conference  final- 
ly chose  to  assume,  in  relation  to  the  whole  affair. 

Recent  intimations  that  Mitchell's  explanation  is  yet  to  be  explained,  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  great  Northern  party  are  by  no  means  settled  as  to  purpose  or  policy,  end  or 
means.  What  the  result  may  be  as  it  regards  these,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing. 
We  know,  it  is  true,  for  we  have  the  evidence  in  our  possession,  that  there  is  a  large 
amount  of  dissent  and  dissatisfaction  North,  in  relation  to  the  course  pursued  by  the 
official  Press,  but  whether  such  dissent  will  ever  be  developed  and  embodied  in  any 
available  action,  admits  of  doubt.  It  is  not  unlikely  the  principal  results  will  be  con- 
fined to  want  of  confidence,  division,  and  distraction  among  the  different  sections  of  the 
party. 

Editors  charged  with  the  management  of  the  Church,  the  General  Conference,  the 
Episcopacy,  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  so  on,  as  the  greater  includes  the  less,  are 
certainly  potent  agents,  and  wield  effective  instrumentalities,  and  may  ward  off  evils 
which  we  deem  inevitable.  Meanwhile,  it  is  our  opinion  that,  however  party  policy 
and  interest  may  hold  the  great  Northern  mass  together  for  a  short  time,  (supposing 
the  South  to  organize,)  yet  at  no  distant  day,  the  anti-slavery  of  the  more  Northern 
Conferences,  will  drive  off  all  connected  with  slavery  in  the  Baltimore,  Philadelphia, 
Pittsburg,  and  Ohio  Conferences,  as  well  as  societies  "adhering"  North,  on  the  South- 
ern border,  or  failing  in  this,  will  declare  themselves  independent,  and  throw  them- 
selves in  conflict  with  the  Conferences  now  connected  with  slavery.  Were  the  slave 
holding  portions  of  the  Conferences  just  named,  to  unite  with  the  South,  (an  event  not 
at  all  likely  to  occur,  as  will  soon  be  shown  by  the  Baltimore  Conference,)  the  entire 
North  might  remain  together,  but  in  view  of  the  course  things  are  now  taking,  continu- 
ed union  is  extremely  improbable.  So  soon  as  these  sections  are  found  in  a  state  of 
actual  wardship  under  the  Northern  guardians  of  the  Church,  it  will  be  demanded-  of 
them  to  relieve  the  Church  North  of  the  last  vestige  of  slavery.  This  demand  will  no 
doubt,  be  resisted,  and  disunion  and  conflict,  followed  by  separation,  will  be  the  result. 
Without  the  compromise  shown  in  these  pages  to  have  so  long  distinguished  the  rela- 
tions of  "Methodism  and  Slavery,"  it  is  impossible  they  can  live  together  in  peace, 
although  hostility  to  the  South  may  keep  them  together  for  the  purposes  of  defence  and 
aggression  as  a  party.  The  pertinence  of  the  following  language,  from  a  Northern 
source,  in  no  way  implicated  in  this  controversy,  will  be  appreciated  by  good  sense  every 
where.  The  various  necessities  (of  the  Church,)  are  sometimes  too  obstinately  discor- 
dant to  be  met  by  any  general  laws,  and  yet  general  laws  alone  can  be  passed.  Such  are 
the  contrarieties  of  views,  principles,  interests,  and  ulterior  objects,  that  the  legislation 
of  the  General  Conference  is  of  sheer  necessity,  conducted  on  the  principle  and  in  the 
spirit  of  compromise.''1  The  vigorous  minded  author  of  the  above  sentence  saw  clearly, 
that  the  moral  and  ecclesiastical  cannot  be  separated  from  the  political  relations  of  slave- 
ry wherever  it  exists,  under  the  high  sanction  of  the  civil  polity  of  the  country,  and  wo 
have  seen  that  it  so  exists  in  the  United  States.  Our  connection  with  slavery  is  strictly 
national.  It  exists  in  the  South  by  consent  of  the  North,  and  from  the  very  foundations 
of  the  government  blends  indissolubly  with  our  national  existence  and  relations.  The 
responsibility,  whether  as  it  regards  its  existence,  continuance,  or  removal,  belongs  to 
the  nation  as  such,  and  not  to  the  South  alone.  This  opinion  has  been  deliberately 
16 


122 

avowed,  ndt  only  by  the  first  statesmen  and  jurists  of  the  country,  but  virtually,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  Congress,  and  gravely  and  formally  by  nearly  one  half  the  State  Legisla- 
tures of  the  Union,  in  connection  with  the  objects  of  African  Colonization,  particularly 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia, 
Georgia,  Tennessee,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Indiana,  seven  of  them  being  non-slave  hold- 
ing States.  Any  attempt  to  palm  the  evil  upon  the  South  as  sectional,  can  only  be  the 
result  of  ignorance  or  ill  nature.  The  great  act  and  means  of  our  nationalization,  both 
as  a  people  and  as  several  different  States  in  union — the  formation  and  adoption  of  the 
national  constitution,  places  this  beyond  dispute.  So  far  as  slavery  is  evil,  it  is  the  na- 
tion that  has  sinned,  and  the  nation  must  make  the  atonement,  in  some  form  or  other. 
The  slave  States  have  never  shown  themselves  unwilling  to  make  their  share  of  the 
atonement,  by  safe  and  proper  methods.  Speaking  of  Southern  emancipation  and  the 
separation  of  the  races,  Mr.  Jefferson  says,  "although  more  important  to  the  slave 
Stales,  it  is  highly  so  to  the  others  also,  if  they  were  serious  in  their  arguments  on  the 
Missouri  question.  The  slave  States  too,  if  more  interested,  would  also  contribute  mora 
by  their  gratuitous  liberation,  thus  taking  upon  themselves  alone,  the  first  and  heav- 
iest item  of  expense."  If  it  be  alledged  that  the  system  of  Southern  domestic  slavery 
precludes  the  hope  that  the  South  will  so  act  as  to  sustain  the  high  interests  of  civil 
liberty  in  the  United  States,  it  will  perhaps  be  sufficient  to  reply  to  the  charge,  as  did 
Edmund  Burke  to  a  similar  charge  in  the  British  Parliament :  "the  people  of  the  South- 
ern colonies  of  America,  are  much  more  strongly,  and  with  a  higher  and  more  stubborn 
spirit,  attached  to  liberty,  than  those  to  the  Northward." 

We  are  tempted  again  to  ask,  why  the  South  is  denounced  with  such  unsparing  bit- 
terness for  doing  only  what  our  denouncers  glory  in  having  done  themselves?  The 
Northern  organs  of  the  General  Conference,  assure  the  Church,  as  quietly  as  though 
they  had  right  to  do  so,  that  ministers  and  people  arp  under  no  obligation  of  any  kind, 
to  be  governed  by  the  action  of  that  body  on  the  subject  of  separation,  declaring  the 
whole  to  be  unauthorized  and  not  entitled  to  deference  and  submission  on  the  part  of  the 
Church.  We  have  seen  that  with  infinitely  better  reason  for  what  they  did,  in  resist- 
ing the  prosecution  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  with  constitutional  and  moral  right  to 
which,  the  North  can  lay  no  claim,  the  South  have  done  abstractly,  nothing  but  what 
the  North  has,  and  why  then  so  much  bluster  and  menace  against  us,  while  their  own 
conduct  is  all  well  enough!  Does  it  not  show  at  least  that  party  and  not  principle  is 
the  guiding  influence? 

The  Reply,  if  we  understand  it,  perversely  supposes  the  Protest  to  assume  that  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  slave-holding  States  respectively, 
are  such  that  these  must  be  violated  by  any  effort  toward  the  emancipation  of  the  negro. 
No  such  idea  is  conveyed  in  any  part  of  the  Protest.  Nor  is  the  reasoning  of  that  pa- 
per touched  by  the  alternative  so  much  stressed  by  the  Reply,  that  law  must  require 
slave  holding  on  the  one  hand,  or  merely  allow  it  on  the  other.  The  logic  of  the  Pro- 
test is  not  at  fault  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  this  alternative  view  of  the  subject  is 
correct  in  States  where  emancipation  is  impracticable,  and  this  cannot  be  done,  for  the 
assumption  of  the  Reply  is  contrary  to  notorious  fact.  In  Georgia,  for  example,  and 
nearly  all  the  Southern  States,  a  citizen  holding  slaves  is  required  to  hold  unless  he 
transfer  his  title,  which  transfer  does  not  affect  the  legal  servitude  of  the  slave.  What 
is  meant  by  the  Protest  in  this  respect,  and  is  contended  for  in  the  argument  of  this  Re- 
view is,  that  the  law  of  slavery  in  most  of  the  slave  holding  States,  does  not  allow  the 
freedom  of  the  slave  and  prohibits  interference  of  any  kind  with  the  relations  or  rights  of 
the  citizen  holding  *lavfc«,  and  it  is  charged  that  contrary  to  its  publiihsd  creed  and 


123 

pledged  faith,  the  Church  has  so  interfered  at  different  times  and  in  numerous  instan« 
ces.  If  we  have  failed  to  make  good  the  charge,  the  North  have  the  disposition  and 
ability  to  make  it  appear,  and  let  it  be  done.  In  disposing  of  several  miscellaneous 
items  in  this  connection,  we  take  great  pleasure  in  repeating,  what  is  felt  to  be  but  a 
simple  act  of  justice,  that  in  speaking  of  the  abolition  and  anti-slavery  of  England  and 
the  North  of  the  United  States,  we  have,  as  before  explained,  no  intention  to  implicato 
or  in  any  way  censure  the  entire  people  found  in  either,  but  ask  distinctly  that  the  appli- 
cation of  our  strictures  and  reasoning  may  be  confined  to  two  classes,  those  practically 
engaged  in  the  conduct  and  movements  we  have  described  :  and  second,  those  who  either 
approve  or  fail  to  resist  them.  If  it  is  not  our  object  to  show  that  the  good  people  of 
England  and  the  North  of  the  United  States,  viewed  as  an  entire  people,  are  worse 
than  those  of  the  Southern  States,  but  that  they  are  no  belter,  and  that  the  stupidly  ab- 
surd boasting  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  in  behalf  of  the  former,  can  be  very  satis- 
factorily replied  to  by  the  latter,  whenever  it  is  necessary.  From  large  portions  of 
the  people  of  England  and  the  North,  we  receive  nothing  but  outrage  and  insult— the 
anathemas  of  illnature  rather  than  the  sympathies  of  brotherhood,  and  conscious  we  do 
not  deserve  the  treatment  we  receive,  we  have  thought  it  but  just  and  right  to  let  it  be 
seen  by  whom  and  under  what  show  of  claim  we  are  thus  cursed  and  banned.  On  this 
topic  we  have  sustained  our  views  almost  exclusively  by  English  and  Northern  wit- 
nesses, and  these  not  few  in  number  or  questionable  in  character.  We  have  said  of 
England,  nothing  more  than  what  Englishmen  have  said — one  of  her  distinguished  sons 
for  example,  in  the  North  British  Review,  "injustice,  oppression,  and  degradation,  in 
too  many  quarters  of  the  globe,  have  been  the  sole  fruits  of  British  interference,"  We 
have  said  of  the  North  nothing,  it  is  believed,  which  does  injustice  to  the  truth  of  his- 
tory. Of  the  South,  in  connection  with  the  many  unnecessary  and  wanton  abuses,  in  the 
shape  of  inhumanity  and  vice,  more  or  less  incident  to  the  system  of  slavery,  we  have 
spoken  plainly  and  without  reserve,  and  have  only  defended  the  South  so  far  as  we  be- 
lieve truth  and  justice  entitle  her  to  defense.  Truth  and  plain  dealing  have  been  our 
object.  We  have  no  cherished  ulterior  aims  to  accomplish,  beyond  an  attempt  to  ren- 
der the  subject  in  controversy  less  difficult  and  intractable  to  those  who  may  wish  to 
understand  it.  We  have  written  under  the  full  and  strong  conviction,  that  the  igno- 
rance in  which  the  popular  mind  of  the  nation  has  been  kept  by  its  teachers,  respecting 
the  true  relations  of  the  North  and  South  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  is  a  stupendous 
fraud  upon  the  unsuspecting  credulity  of  millions,  and  fatally  tending  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  great  national  brotherhood,  in  which  they  are  now  so  happily  blended. 
We  repeat,  it  is  not  our  wish,  it  is  no  part  of  our  purpose,  to  defend  individuals  or  the 
South  in  regard  to  any  of  the  abuses  of  slavery,  such  as  cruelty  of  any  kind  to  slaves, 
neglect  of  their  comfort,  inattention  to  their  wants,  violation  of  their  rights— the  infa- 
mous practice  of  driving  an  internal  trade  in  slaves,  with  its  usual  attendant  enormities 
for  the  purposes  of  gain  ;  these  and  all  kindred  evils,  we  abhor  and  denounce,  and  shall 
always  continue  to  do  so,  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  either  religion  or  humanity,  and 
as  deserving  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  both.  The  Reply  most  disingenuously  as  we 
think,  tries  to  involve  the  Bishops  in  the  prosecution  of  Bishop  Andrew.  They  say 
the  Majority  had  it  "forced"  upon  them  by  the  address  of  the  Bishops.  The  Bishops, 
however,  made  no  allusion  to  any  difficulty  or  disability  preventing  Bishop  Andrew 
from  doing  the  work  of  a  general  superintendent,  and  in  their  address  on  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,  expressly  affirm  the  contrary  of  what  the  Reply  attempts  to  fix  upon  them. 
They  say  in  terms,  that  work  could  be  given  to  Bishop  Andrew,  where  he  would  be 
cordially  received,  "without  any  infraction  of  a  constitutional  principle."  The  con- 


124 

struction  of  the  Reply  was  disavowed  by  the  Bishops  before  the  Reply  was  written,  and 
the  injustice  to  the  Bishops  is  without  excuse.  The  attempt  of  the  Reply,  endorsed 
by  Advocates,  &c.  to  make  it  appear  that  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Southern  States  stands 
in  the  same  relation  to  personal  choice,  and  the  virtues  of  good  character  with  the  pat- 
ronage of  the  theatre,  grog  shop,  and  gaming  table,  will  prove  too  attractive  not  to  en- 
gage the  attention  of  the  reader  without  further  comment  from  us,  A  cipher,  whether 
as  it  regards  persons  or  things,  does  not  always  pass  for  naught,  and  will  not  in  this  in- 
stance. The  Church,  both  in  law  and  practice,  has  always  made  the  distinction  and 
recognized  the  difference  it  seems  to  be  the  object  of  the  Reply  to  deny  and  confound. 

The  Reply  urges  most  strenuously,  that  unless  a  Bishop  shall  travel  throughout  the 
whole  extent  of  territory  embraced  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  American  con- 
nection, he  cannot  be  constitutionally,  a  general  superintendent,  and  it  is  argued  that  as 
the  North  are  not  disposed  to  receive  Bishop  Andrew  in  that  character,  of  course  he 
cannot  be  one.  This  whole  argument  is  entirely  fallacious  for  several  reasons  :  1st. 
What  it  requires  is  impossible,  during  the  quadrennial  intervals  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. 2d.  It  has  not  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Bishops  for  the  last  twenty 
years.  3d.  The  disqualification  of  Bishop  Andrew,  can  only  be  made  out  in  view  of  a 
demand  of  abolition  and  anti-slavery,  not  only  extra-legal  but  unlawful ;  not  only  does 
no  law  require  it,  but  it  is  contrary  to  law.  And  finally,  the  reverse  of  what  is  assumed 
has  been  repeatedly  authorized  by  the  General  Conference.  That  of  1840  for  example, 
resolved  that  the  Bishops  be  recommended  "to  make  such  an  apportionment  of  the 
work  among  themselves,  as  shall  in  their  judgment  most  effectually  promote  the  general 
good."  In  1832  the  General  Conference  resolved,  "it  is  inexpedient  to  require  each  of 
our  Bishops  to  travel  throughout  tne  whole  of  their  extensive  charge  during  the  recess 
of  the  General  Conference,"  and  they  recommend  the  Episcopacy  so  to  arrange  their 
general  oversight  in  this  respect,  as  shall  best  suit  their  own  convenience.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1824,  resolved  that  "it  is  highly  expedient  for  the  general  super- 
intendents to  meet  in  council  at  every  session  of  the  General  Conference,  to  form  their 
plan  of  traveling  through  their  charge,  whether  in  a  circuit  after  each  other,  or  dividing 
the  connection  into  Episcopal  Departments  as  to  them  may  appear  proper  and  most  con- 
ducive to  the  general  good."  The  Bishops  in  May  last,  said,  "no  constitutional  princi- 
ple would  be  infringed  by  giving  Bishop  Andrew  work  where  he  would  be  cordially  re- 
ceived." The  Reply,  therefore,  is  entirely  at  fault  in  this  matter,  as  the  General  Con- 
ference has,  at  several  different  times,  expressly  authorized  what  they  afErm  would  des- 
troy the  Episcopacy  altogether!  If  not  "to  travel  at  large,"  through  all  the  Annual 
Conferences,  destroys  the  validity  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  did  not  the  late  General 
Conference  violate  one  of  the  restrictive  rules,  in  the  quasi  location  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
without  finding  him  guilty  of  offense  against  some  law  of  the  Church? 

It  has  been  shown  that  under  semblance  of  conformity  to  the  provisions  of  a  consti- 
tution and  the  forms  of  law,  an  unlawful  and  even  fraudulent  use  may  be  made  of  both, 
and  resistance  in  all  such,  and  in  all  analogous  cases,  is  the  only  remedy  left  the  injured 
party. 

The  South  -'broke  the  tables"  but  not  "the  law."  The  North  broke  the  law  and  then 
destroyed  the  tables,  by  proclaiming  the  Legislature  superior  to  the  Constitution,  the  res- 
trictive articles  only  excepted.  The  South  maintain  that  the  law  of  the  land,  as  the 
general  rule  and  by  fair  implication,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  ec- 
clesiastical law,  and  that  any  attempt  by  Church  action,  to  invade  or  unsettle  rights  and 
relations  connected  with  the  subject  matter  of  the  civil  code,  and  accredited  by  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  National  will,  is  as  alien  to  Methodism  as  it  is  manifestly  "unscrip- 


125 

tural,"  and  if  we  have  seemed  to  break  the  letter  of  the  Church  law,  in  some  aspects 
of  the  subject,  it  was  only  to  maintain  its  spirit  and  purpose  in  others  of  much  more 
importance. 

The  object  of  the  attempt  to  make  the  South  a  "secession,"  is  two  fold.  It  is  ex- 
pected to  be  a  permanent  bond  of  union  between  the  abolition  and  old  anti-slavery 
parties.  They  hope  to  have  no  further  cause  of  quarrel  as  during  the  late  "Radico 
abolition"  war,  and  it  also  tends  to  the  gratification  of  a  large  amount  of  personal 
grudge  and  spleen  indulged  in  by  Northern  leaders,  towards  individuals  in  the  South, 
who  have  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  become  somewhat  prominent  in  this  controversy. 
A  third  motive,  connected  with /the  funds  of  the  Church,  has  its  influence  with  some, 
who  cannot  help  betraying  their  reverence  for  the  butler,  but  we  do  not  believe  it  applies 
to  the  North  generally,  nor  will  we  believe  it,  until  they  refuse  to  divide  as  ordered  by 
the  General  Conference,  which  we  are  quite  sure  the  upright  masses  in  the  ministry 
and  membership  North,  will  not  permit  their  leaders  to  do. 

The  Reply  bases  several  of  its  conclusions  upon  the  fact  that  the  action  of  the  Ma- 
jority against  B;.shop  Andrew,  was  called  for  by  the  abolition  petitions  presented  to  the 
Conference.  The  reasoning  of  the  Repliers  in  this  respect,  is  directly  opposed  to  a  formal 
decision  of  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  which  declares  that  petitions  relating  to  gen- 
eral interests  and  not  involving  personal  grievance,  are  to  be  considered  only  as  the 
opinions  and  arguments  of  the  signers,  and  not  prayer  for  relief  under  protection  of 
the  right  of  petition.  We  must,  therefore,  understand  the  Majority  as  endorsing  the 
doctrines  of  the  petitions,  or  else  dissenting  from  General  Conference  authority. 
Which  was  intended"? 

Another  fallacy  of  the  Manifesto  is,  it  seems  to  connect  the  principal  functions  of 
Episcopacy  with  the  mere  fact  of  "traveling  at  large,"  whereas  the  true  idea  of  general 
superintendency  is,  the  extent  and  universality  of  the  Bishop's  oversight  and  jurisdic- 
tion, as  it  regards  all  the  various  interests  of  the  Church  "temporal  and  spiritual," 
and  it  would  have  been  much  more  consistent  with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
Church,  if  instead  of  the  unlawful  attempt  to  exclude  Bishop  Andrew,  from  the  North, 
on  account  of  a  connection  with  slavery  authorized  by  the  Church,  (as  we  have  shown,) 
they  had  urged  the  duty  of  his  oversight  in  that  direction,  to  resist  and  subdue  the  inva- 
sion and  defiance  of  law  and  order  by  anti-slavery  extravagance.  Another  of  the  pro- 
abolition  heresies  of  the  Reply  is,  that  what  is  avowedly  founded  in  grace,  the  will  and' 
call  of  Christ,  we  mean  the  oversight  and  jurisdiction  of  a  Christian  Bishop,  according 
to  the  ordination  service,  may  be  forfeited  or  at  least  annulled  without  sin  or  moral 
offense  of  any  kind.  What  right  can  the  Church  have  to  remove,  punish,  or  in  any 
way  embarrass  a  man  called  by  Christ  to  the  "work  and  office"  of  a  Bishop,  when  it  is 
not  even  alledged  that  he  has  sinned  against  any  law  of  Christ!  Whatever  else  it  may 
be,  this  is  not  Methodism. 

We  had  long  hoped  and  believed  that  the  salvation  of  the  slave  would  prove  a  saha- 
tory  clause  in  the  anti-slavery  creed  of  Northern  Methodism,  and  so  arrest  the  vandal 
inroads  of  abolitionism,  as  to  allow  the  "gospel  free  course"  among  the  slaves  of  the 
South.  We  re-advert  to  the  subject  because  no  urgency  of  appeal  can  equal  its  im- 
portance. By  how  much  Hell  is  worse  than  the  social  bondage  of  the  slave,  and  Hea- 
ven preferable  to  any  condition  the  result  of  his  liberation  ;  by  how  far  eternity  is  more 
important  than  time,  thus  infinitely  does  the  poor  negro  need  the  gospel  more  than  any 
thing  else,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  them  are  now  annually  receiving  it  at  the 
hands  of  the  Southern  ministry.  This  work,  however,  the  North  is  steadily  retarding 
by  its  whole  course  of  policy  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Not  satisfied  with  inspiring 


126 

the  slave  with  impatience  and  discontent  in  relation  to  his  earthly  lot,  they  dash  from 
his  lips  the  cop  of  salvation,  and  leave  him  to  his  fate.  If  they  "remember  tho=e  that 
are  in  bonds,"  it  is  certainly  not  "as  bound  icilh  them"  In  this  respect  they  are  indeed 
fearful  defaulters  in  the  cause  of  the  negro.  How  very  differently  did  the  good  Asbury 
think  and  feel  on  this  great  question  of  life  and  death  to  the  negro.  Assuming  the 
truth  of  Park's  Travels  and  similar  accounts  of  Africa,  he  says,  "the  Africans  are  in  a 
state  so  wretched,  that  any  sufferings  with  the  gospel,  would  be  preferred."  After  a 
long  and  conscientious  struggle  with  his  early  abolition  principles  and  feelings,  this 
good  man  clung  to  the  compromise  of  these  pages,  as  the  true  ground  to  be  occupied 
by  the  Church,  declaring  his  maxim  to  be,  "all  is  right  that  works  right— all  is  wrong 
that  works  wrong." 

Before  dismissing  this  general  topic,  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  a  covert  intimation  of 
the  Reply,  to  the  efiect  that  whatever  may  be  the  protection  extended  or  the  rights  se- 
cured to  the  owner  of  slaves  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  and  the 
States  respectively,  where  slavery  exists,  it  can  be  no  ground  of  argument  or  action  in 
the  pending  struggle  between  the  North  and  South.  We  believe,  however,  the  intel- 
ligent reader  will  be  prepared  to  decide,  in  view  of  the  evidence  submitted,  that  the  pro- 
tection and  security  in  question,  are  just  and  necessary  grounds  of  both  argument  and 
action,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Majority  in  this  respect,  has  been  constantly  disa- 
vowed by  the  Church  from  1800  to  1844.  The  standing  laws  of  the  Church  during  this 
entire  period,  have  pledged  the  public  faith  of  the  whole  body,  that  where  emancipation 
is  impracticable,  consistently  with  civil  law,  it  shall  not  be  required  of  any  person  or  class, 
as  the  condition  of  Church  privileges  or  ecclesiastical  relations.  The  deliberate  and 
undoubted  violation  of  this  pledge  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  taught  the  South- 
ern portion  of  the  Church,  that  the  larger  division  of  it  North,  had  abandoned  the  legal 
compromise  of  the  Discipline  upon  which  the  South  had  so  long  and  confidently  reposed, 
and  that  the  future  relations  of  the  slave  holding  and  non-slave  holding  Conferences, 
would  have  to  be  adjusted  upon  a  different  basis.  This  conviction  produced  the  Protest, 
and  after  protracted  and  anxious  deliberation,  the  parties  "in  General  Conference 
assembled,"  mutually  agreed  upon  a  "constitutional  plan"  of  separation,  giving  to  each 
division  distinct  and  independent  jurisdiction. 

In  offering  some  remarks  in  the  shape  of  an  outline  argument  upon  the  rights  and 
powers  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  General  Conference,  respectively,  before  we  close,  it  is 
not  intended  to  touch  the  theological  argument  distinguishing  a  Bishop  from  a  Presby- 
ter, nor  yet  to  discuss  the  scriptural  rights  and  claims  of  a  Christian  Bishop,  but  mere- 
ly to  fix  the  place,  and  ascertain  the  true  relations  and  consequent  constitutional  rights 
of  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  the  chief  executive  njjicer  known  in 
its  government.  The  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  the  Protest  and  Reply,  turns  entirely  upon  the  strictly  ecclesiastical  relations  of 
a  Bishop  in  the  government  of  the  Church.  About  the  scriptural  character  of  a  Chris- 
tian Bishop  we  may  differ  in  opinion,  but  have  no  dispute.  The  incipient  controversy, 
likely  to  become  as  serious,  in  many  respects,  as  that  on  slavery,  hinges,  in  every  ele- 
mentary sense,  upon  the  Bishop's  proper  constitutional  participation  in  the  governing 
•power  of  the  Church.  In  the  theory  of  Methodist  Church  government,  as  found  in  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  variously  explained  and  illustrated 
in  the  history  and  publications  of  the  Church,  Bishops  are  regarded  as  a  third  order  in 
the  ministry  only,  in  view  of  their  governing  powers  as  church  or  ecclesiastical  rulers. 
They  are  a  third  order,  not  in  the  institution  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  as  derived  from 
Christ,  but  in  the  structure  of  the  government  which  claims  to  be  divinely  authorized, 


127 

because  consistent  with  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  New  Testament,  without  being 
required  by  it,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  forms  of  government.  Or  still  more  explicit- 
ly, the  present  controversy  turns  upon  the  distribution,  by  the  organic  laws  of  the 
Church,  of  the  necessary  powers  and  attributes  of  every  government,  between  the 
Episcopacy  and  General  Conference.  No  question  arises  as  to  what  ought  to  be  the 
distribution  of  power,  but  the  inquiry  is  absolutely  restricted  to  the  fact  of  distribution, 
as  the  government  is  known  to  have  been  organized  and  administered.  It  does  not  de- 
volve upon  us,  nor  would  it  be  at  all  in  place,  to  show  in  what  respects  the  govern- 
ment might  have  been  more  consistently  or  advantageously  adjusted.  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  how  has  it  been  adjusted  in  point  of  factl  What  are  the  constitution  and  laws, 
and  what  is  the  evidence  of  practice  and  usage,  as  it  regards  the  existing  conflict  of 
right  and  claim  between  the  Episcopacy  and  the  General  Conference]  After  what  man- 
ner, by  whom,  and  for  what  purposes  was  Episcopacy  introduced  and  established] 
How,  and  by  whom,  and  with  what  power  and  rights  was  the  General  Conference  or- 
ganized? In  what  relation  do  they  stand  to  each  other]  What  are  the  proper  func- 
tions of  each]  In  what  defined  relation,  especially,  does  each  stand  to  the  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive  power  of  the  government]  These  and  similar  topics  become 
the  true  text  of  discussion,  apart  from  all  speculation  as  to  how  things  might  have  been 
better  arranged.  We  offer  no  defence  of  Methodist  Episcopacy.  With  the  abstract 
right  or  wrong  of  its  theory  we  have  nothing  to  do.  Whether  it  have  more  or  less 
power  than  it  ought  to  have,  is  a  question  not  mooted  at  all.  What  is  the  theory,  and 
what  the  vested  power  and  rights  of  the  Episcopacy,  by  our  present  form  of  constitu- 
tional government,  is  the  true  and  only  question.  It  is  charged  in  the  Protest,  and  be- 
lieved in  the  South,  that  the  late  General  Conference  invaded  rights  originally  secured 
to  the  Episcopacy  as  a  constitutional  trust,  and  over  which  the  General  Conference  has 
no  control,  except  in  its  judicial  capacity,  upon  conviction  of  misconduct,  and  forfeit- 
ure of  right.  We  have  never  doubted,  for  a  moment,  that  the  General  Conference 
transcended  its  powers  in  action,  and  avowed  principles  and  opinions  subversive  of  the 
constitution  and  government  of  the  Church.  This  opinion  is  not  confined  to  the  South. 
Many,  among  the  old  and  the  wise  of  the  North,  entertain  it,  and  are  not  without  fear 
and  anxiety  as  to  the  future. 

In  the  very  cursory  examination  we  shall  be  able  to  give  this  subject,  we  shall  do 
little  more  than  attempt  to  indicate  the  data  and  trains  of  reasoning  connected  with  the 
conclusions  we  avow.  The  Majority  of  the  late  General  Conference  claim,  in  behalf  of 
that  body,  that  it  is  the  source  of  Episcopal  power  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
This  claim  will  be  found  in  the  Debates,  the  Reply,  and  in  all  the  Northern  Advocates. 
It  has  been  put  forth  with  significant  minuteness  in  a  hundred  different  forms.  Taking 
rank  among  the  notabilities  of  Bishop  Hamline's  really  able  and  eloquent  speech,  it  has 
continued  to  maintain  its  prominence  down  to  the  last  hebdomadal  effusions  of  the 
Northern  press,  and  some  great  men  have  gone  so  far  as  to  give  notice  that  vows  are 
upon  them  to  sacrifice  even  life,  if  it  be  necessary,  upon  the  altar  of  its  defence!  We 
trust,  however,  that  such  costly  sacrifices  will  not  be  found  necessary.  Meanwhile,  let 
us  attend  to  the  claim  itself.  What  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  the  subject 
for  the  sixty  years  of  its  existence]  The  testimony  of  Dr.  Coke,  the  first  Bishop  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is,  that  "Mr.  Wesley  was  recognized  by  the  whole 
body  of  American  Methodists  as  the  fountain  of  our  Episcopal  office."  Dr.  Emory 
says,  "Mr.  Wesley  did  institute  an  Episcopacy  for  the  American  Methodists."  The 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Magazine  says,  "the  Episcopacy  itself  was  of  Mr.  Wesley's  en- 
acting." In  the  Minutes  and  Discipline  of  17S9,  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  is  ex- 


128 

presslysaid  to  be  derived  from  Wesley  "by  regular  order  and  succession."  Dr.  Emory 
says,  "if  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke,  (as  Bishop,)  was  not  an  ordination  proper)  and 
not  a  mere  appointment  to  office,  it  was  certainly  a  very  solemn  mockery — a  trifling 
with  sacred  things."  Dr.  Bangs  says,  "the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organized 
under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Wesley."  Dr.  Coke  distinctly  informs  us  he  acted,  in  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  "under  delegated  authority  from  Mr. 
Wesley."  Mr.  Wesley  having  ordained  one,  and  provided,  by  formal  commission,  for 
the  ordination  of  the  other,  says,  "I  have  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  Joint 
Superintendants."  The  Discipline  speaks  of  "letters  of  Episcopal  ordination"  receiv- 
ed from  Mr.  Wesley,  and  also  informs  us  that  the  Conference  of  1784,  when  the  Church 
was  organized,  "received"  Coke  and  Asbury  as  their  Bishops,  appointed  by  Wesley, 
"being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal  ordination."  In  the  ordination 
credentials  of  Coke  and  Asbury,  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  power  or  right,  as  derived 
from  the  American  Preachers,  by  election.  Dr.  Elliott  says,  that  "Mr.  Wesley  having 
full  power  and  perfect  right  to  do  so,  provided  for  the  American  Methodists  a  plan  of 
Church  government  and  Church  offices"  He  says,  Wesley  was  "the  acknowledged 
Bishop  of  the  connection  in  America."  He  says,  "we  had  no  possible  chance to  obtain 
an  Episcopacy  except  from  Wesley."  He  speaks  of  Wesley  as  the  "leading  agent"  in 
the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  says  the  American  Metho- 
dists appealed  to  him  "as  their  Bishop  or  Chief  Presbyter,"  with  right  to  govern  them. 
He  declares  Wesley  "ecclesiastically  called  to  this  Episcopal  work."  He  maintains 
that  ours,  "as  received  from  Wesley,  is  a  genuine  Episcopacy."  The  venerable  Mor- 
rell  says,  of  the  original  institution  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  "distinct  ordination 
proves  a  different  degree  of  order,  if  Mr.  Wesley's  conduct  is  to  be  admitted  in  proof." 
Coke  and  Asbury  say  Mr.  Wesley  consecrated  the  former  Bishop,  and  directed  him  to 
consecrate  the  latter,  "that  our  Episcopacy  might  descend  from  himself."  Dr.  Bangs 
says,  "Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke  to  this  very  office,"  (the  Episcopal,)  and  sent 
him  to  America  "with  power  to  ordain  others,  and  exercise  functions  which  appertained 
not  to  simple  Presbyters."  He  says,  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  it  was  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
"own  creation — the  child  of  his  choice."  He  adds,  "Mr.  Wesley  certainly  intended 
Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church  in  America." 
And  again,  "Episcopal  powers  were  certainly  invested  in  them"  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and, 
says  the  Doctor,  there  "was  an  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  to  all  intents  and  purposes." 
Dr.  Emory  says,  further,  "Mr.  Wesley  established  an  Episcopal  order  of  Ministers." 
"Mr.  Wesley  intended  to  establish  the  ordination  of  an  order  of  Superintendents,  to 
act  as  Bishops  in  fact."  He  affirms  Mr.  Wesley  "did,  in  fact,  claim  and  exercise  Epis- 
copal authority"  in  America,  and  was,  in  fact,  our  first  Bishop.  P.  P.  Sandford  says? 
"Methodist  Episcopacy  emanated  from  Wesley."  Dr.  Phrebus  says,  "cur  orders  in  the 
Church  are  from  God,  we  received  them  from  Christ  by  \Yeshy."  Again,  Dr.  Bangs 
says,  "John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodist  Episcopacy."  He  adds,  "Wesley  was 
the  head  of  the  connection,  and  as  such  gave  law  and  direction  to  the  whole  body." 
Charles  Wesley  says  of  his  brother,  "he  consecrated  a  Bishop  and  sent  him  to  Ameri- 
ca." Dr.  Coke  says,  "from  Wesley  I  received  my  commission."  This  is  the  common 
current  language  of  our  Church  writers.  All  unite  in  tracing  the  Episcopal  office  to 
Wesley  as  its  source  and  fountain.  How  the  General  Conference  came  to  be  mixed  up 
and  united  with  the  authority  of  Wesley,  in  giving  birth  and  perpetuity  to  Methodist 
Episcopacy,  we  shall  see  at  proper  length  in  its  place,  and  will  only  remark  here,  that 
the  confusion  of  origin  and  misapprehension,  as  to  strictly  Episcopal  investiture,  seem 
to  have  been  occasioned  by  two  circumstances  especially  :  1st,  The  purpose  of  Asbury 


129 

not  to  nccept  ordination,  as  directed  by  Wesley,  without  the  previous  concurrence  of 
the  American  Preachers,  and  the  fact  that  they  did  concur,  both  in  his  case  and  Coke's. 
And,  2d,  The  additional  fact,  that  in  the  instance  of  all  their  coadjutors  or  successors, 
it  was  determined  that  the  designation  should  be  by  the  body  of  Traveling  Ministers. 
From  these  facts,  two  things  have  been  assumed  as  vital  to  Methodist  Episcopacy.  1st, 
That  the  body  of  American  Preachers  were  creatively  concerned  in  its  origination  ;  and 
2nd,  That  the  rights  and  authority  of  the  Investiture — the  office,  are,  in  every  proper 
sense,  derived  from  them.  Both  these  conclusions  are  not  only  faulty,  but  erroneous, 
as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see,  and  have  been  used  as  the  premises  of  other  conclu- 
sions equally  untenable. 

At  present,  however,  let  us  briefly  enquire  after  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  Epis- 
copacy, as  avowed  and  advocated  by  the  Church  since  its  first  organization.  A  brief 
general  glance  at  the  subject  here  will  be  sufficient.  Other  necessary  views  of  the 
subject  will  come  in  elsewhere.  Bishop  Asbury  says,  "there  is  not,  nor  indeed  in  my 
mind  can  there  be,  a  perfect  equality  between  a  constant  President,  (Bishop,)  and  those 
over  whom  he  always  presides ."  Dr.  Emory  says,  from  Stillingfleet,  in  relation  to  the 
ceremony  of  Episcopal  ordination,  "the  bare  imposition  of  hands  did  not  confer  any 
power,  but  with  that  ceremony  they  joined  those  words  whereby  they  did  confer  author- 
ity." Dr.  Bangs  says,  in  relation  to  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  the 
United  States,  "the  British  Methodists  have  no  visible  head,  but  we  have."  Dr.  Emory, 
in  showing  Bishops  to  be  superior  to  Presbyters,  speaks  of  a  Bishop  as  the  "constitu- 
ted organ"  of  the  Church,  for  the  purposes  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction.  Dr.  Bangs 
remarks,  "as  to  the  government,  the  title  sufficiently  ascertains  its  distinctive  character, 
it  being  in  fact  and  name  Episcopal."  And  again,  speaking  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  he  maintains  he  is  "a  superior  minister,  possessing  a  delegated 
jurisdiction,  chiefly  of  an  executive  character."  So,  also,  Dr.  Emory,  "the  forms  of 
ordination  prepared  for  us  by  Mr.  Wesley,  for  setting  apart  our  Superintendents  and 
Elders,  were  merely  an  abridgement  of  the  forms  of  the  Church  of  England,  for  setting 
apart  Bishops  and  Priests,  clearly  intending  the  same  ecclesiastical  officers  in  each  case" 
Dr.  Bangs  says,  further,  of  our  Bishops,  that  they  are  the  "Chief  Ministers"  of  the 
Church.  Also,  that  "at  the  organization  of  the  Church,  in  1784,  the  power  of  appoint- 
ing the  Preachers  was  invested  in  the  Bishops."  He  also  says,  "we  approximate  near- 
er, in  respect  to  the  power  of  ordination*,  to  the  Presbyterians,  while,  as  it  respects  the 
power  of  jurisdiction,  we  form  nearly  a  parallelline  with  the  Protestant  Episcopalians." 
He  adds,  of  Bishops,  "this  order  of  Ministers  is  recognized  in  our  Church  ;  to  them  is 
committed  the  chief  government  of  the  Church ;  they  are  consecrated  especially  for  this 
service."  The  Conference  of  1784  resolved,  "we  will  form  ourselves  into  an  Episco- 
pal Church,  under  the  direction  of  Superintendents,  &c."  Dr.  Emory  affirms,  "Mr. 
Wesley  established  an  Episcopal  order  of  Ministers,  and  recommended  to  us  a  solemn 
form  for  the  setting  apart  and  ordaining  such  an  order  ;  a  form  for  the  ordaining  of  Su- 
perintendents among  us,  in  the  same  manner  that  Bishops  are  ordained  in  the  Church 
of  England,  with  the  same  solemnities,  and  for  the  same  purposes — to  preside  over  the 
flock  of  Christ,  including  the  Presbyters."  He  adds,  "is  not  an  Episcopal  order  of 
Ministers  an  Episcopacy,  in  fact?"  Also,  "if,  by  Superintendents,  Mr.  Wesley  did 
not  mean  that  order  of  Ministers,  denominated  by  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Bishops,  neither,  by  Elders,  did  he  mean  that  order  of 
Ministers  denominated  by  those  Churches,  Priests."  The  Doctor  continues,  "Dr.  Coke 
was  set  apart  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  superintend  and  preside  over  the  whole  body  of  Methodist 
Preachers  on  this  continent,  and  to  exercise  all  the  poioers  usually  considered  Episcopal." 


130 

And  further,  bespeaks  of  the  "delegated  jurisdiction  of  our  Bishops."  He  says,  "our 
Bishops  are  an  order  of  Ministers  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  other  Presbyters,  in 
thfi  extent  of  jurisdiction,  and  in  those  executive  powers  delegated  to  them."  Bishop 
McKendree  says,  "a  Bishop  having  the  general  oversight  of  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
concerns  of  the  Church,  is,  of  course,  authorized  to  attend  to  any  and  all  matters, 
small  and  great,  in  the  execution  of  Discipline."  The  authorities  and  evidence  thus 
cited,  may  be  regarded  as  general  in  language,  and  miscellaneous  in  bearing.  This, 
to  some  extent,  is  true,  but  at  the  same  time,  when  we  come  to  apply  the  language,  in 
each  instance,  and  by  analysis  seek  its  meaning,  we  meet  with  nothing  vague  or  inex- 
plicit, but  the  whole,  strikingly  consistent  in  all  its  parts,  is  found  drifting  in  the  same 
direction,  and  conveying  the  definite  idea  of  a  pervading  principle  of  action — a  substan- 
tive power  of  control,  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This 
guiding  principle,  this  directing  agency,  may  not  be,  in  itself,  or  in  relation  to  other 
things,  what  many  would  have  it;  it  may  be  too  strong  for  some,  too  weak  for  others  ; 
fault  may  be  found,  and  difficulties  urged;  objections  maybe  interposed,  and  consequen- 
ces dreaded ;  Scylla  may  be  started  back  from  on  the  one  hand,  and  Charybdis  on  the 
other;  but  all  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  engrossing  us,  which  is  simply  to 
ascertain,  if  possible,  what  is  the  doctrine,  what  the  avowed  opinions  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  on  this  subject1?  And,  in  an  enquiry  of  this  kind,  appeal  must  be  had 
to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Church,  to  precedent  and  usage,  the  acts  of  adminis- 
tration, the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,  as  well  as  the  judgment  and  views  of  the  best 
accredited  expounders  of  the  polity  and  discipline  of  the  Church.  Neither  party  can  set- 
tle the  question  by  proclamation,  or  an  "order  in  council  ;"  the  law  and  Ihe  testimony 
must  become  the  rule  of  judgment.  We  do  not  obtrude  our  own  opinions.  We  prove 
our  positions  by  the  founders,  fathers  and  guardians  of  the  Church.  Speaking  for  them- 
selves, they  tell  another  guise  tale  than  that  of  the  Protest  about  Methodist  Episcopacy. 
An  Episcopacy  of  which  Wesley  is  the  "fountain,"  which  he  "instituted"  and  "enacted," 
derived  from  him  in  "regular  order  and  succession  ;"  an  Episcopal  "ordination  proper, 
not  a  mere  appointment  to  office;"  Episcopal  Church,  "organized  under  the  direction  of 
Wesley ;"  joint  Bishops  "appointed"  by  Wesley;  "Episcopal  ordination  received  from 
Wesley."  The  American  Preachers  "received"  their  Bishops,  as  "appointed"  by  Wesley; 
"fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal  ordination."  Wesley  "the  acknowl- 
edged Bishop  of  the  connexion."  Church  government  and  officers  "provided"  by  Wes- 
ley ;  no  chance  of  an  Episcopacy  "except  from  Wesley."  He  "called  to  this  Episcopal 
work;"  this  a  "genuine  Episcopacy; "  "descended"  from  Wesley;  result  of  a  "dis- 
tinct ordination"  by  Wesley;  conferring  powers  not  to  be  claimed  by  "simple  Presby- 
ters; Episcopacy  of  "Wesley's  own  creation;"  a  "child"  of  his  ;  Wesley  giving  Coke 
and  Asbury  "jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church  in  America;"  "investing  in  them 
Episcopal  powers ;"  "establishing  an  Episcopal  order  ;"  "Bishops  in  fact ;"  Wesley 
"claiming  and  exercising  Episcopal  authority;  "  from  Wesley  "emanated"  Episcopacy  ; 
ecclesiastical  "orders  received  from  Wesley;"  Wesley  "the  Founder  of  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy ;"  "head  of  the  connexion  ;"  gave  law  and  direction  to  the  whole  body  ;"  "con- 
secrated a  Bishop  ;"  Episcopal  "commission"  received  from  Wesley.  Now,  if  all,  or 
but  a  small  part  of  this  be  true,  how  is  Episcopacy  an  emanation  from  the  General  Con- 
ference! In  what  sense  is  the  General  Conference  its  source]  With  what  show  of 
truth  or  fairness  was  the  claim  set  up,  for  the  first  time,  at  the  last  meeting  of  that 
body?  But  again,  a  Bishop  "superior"  to  those  over  whom  he  "presides ;"  "authori- 
ty" conferred  by  "ordination  ;"  Bishop  the  "head"  of  the  Church  ;  the  "constituted  or- 
gan" of  the  Church ;  Episcopacy  giving  "distinctive  character"  to  the  government  of 


131 

the  Church;  a  "superior  Minister;"  having  "delegated  jurisdiction."  The  same  "ec- 
clesiastical officer"  as  Bishop  in  the  English  Establishment;  "chief  Minister  ;"  "pow- 
er invested"  in  the  Bishop  ;  "power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  ;"  having  the  "chief 
government;"  "to  preside  over  the  whole  body"  of  Ministers ;  with  "all  the  powers 
usually  considered  Episcopal;  "distinct  from,  and  superior  to  Presbyters;  both  as  to 
"ordination  and  jurisdiction  ;"  having  the  "general  oversight."  It  is  not  more  cer- 
tainly the  doctrine  of  the  Methodist  Church,  that  Episcopacy  was  exclusively  derived 
from  Wesley,  than  that  it  is  a  constitutional  substantive  power,  and  not  merely  ministe- 
rial agency  in  the  structure  and  government  of  the  Church.  The  language  we  have 
quoted  can  be  misunderstood  by  no  one.  Methodist  Episcopacy,  as  an  institute,  both  in 
view  of  its  origination  and  perpetuity,  is  derived  from  Wesley,  and  Wesley  alone,  ac- 
cording to  all  the  chosen  witnesses  of  the  Church.  To  concur  with  Wesley,  as  peti- 
tioners for  the  boon,  and  "receive"  at  his  hand,  was  all  the  American  Preachers  or  So- 
cieties had  to  do  with  the  matter. 

Dr.  Emory,  in  giving  the  model  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  from  Still ingfleet,  gives 
the  following  quotations,  and  adopts  them  as  principles  of  Methodist  polity :  "The 
Church  delegates  to  the  Episcopacy  a  more  peculiar  exercise  of  the  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion." "The  jurisdiction  of  Presbyters  was  restrained  by  mutual  consent"  "It  be- 
longs to  those  who  are  appointed"  (Bishops.)  "By  this  we  may  understand  how  law- 
ful the  exercise  of  nn  Episcopal  power  may  be  in  the  Church  of  God,  supposing  an 
equality  in  all  Church  officers  as  to  the  power  of  order"  "The  Church  may,  in  a  pe- 
culiar manner,  single  out  some  of  its  officers  for  the  due  administration  of  Episcopal 
power."  "By  the  great  harmony  of  both,  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  the  Church." 
"The  management  of  ordination  and  Church  power,  by  the  Presidency  of  the  Bishop, 
and  the  concurrence  of  the  Presbytery."  "A  twofold  power  belonging  to  Church  offi- 
cers, a  power  of  order  and  a  power  of  jurisdiction."  Stillingfleet  insists  that  the  pow- 
er of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  inherent  in  Presbyters,  is,  upon  its  delegation  to  the 
Episcopacy  "restrained  (in  the  Presbyters')  by  ecclesiastical  laws."  In  relation  to  these 
and  numerous  other  positions  to  the  same  effect,  Dr.  Emory  remarks,  emphatically,  "so 
say  we."  Bishop  Asbury  says,  "if  our  title  \a.A  not  been  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  if  the  English  translation  had  not  rendered  Episcopoi  Bishops,  well  contented  am 
I  to  be  called  Superintendent,  not  Bishop.  They  say  we  (Bishops  and  Elders)  are  the 
same  order ;  then  why  not  the  same  names  in  Greek  and  English?  Why  not  Deacons 
and  Bishops  of  the  same  order!"  The  Discipline  of  1789,  enquires,  "what  is  the  prop- 
er origin  of  Episcopal  authority  in  our  Church?"  In  the  answer,  election  by  the  Con- 
ference is  not  recognized  as  in  any  way  creative  of  Episcopacy,  or  as  being  its  source. 
Bishop  Hamline  affirms,  of  Bishop  Roberts,  "through  his  peers  the  Holy  Ghost  made 
him  overseer.  That  office,  (Episcopal,)  he  executed  by  the  highest  warrant  on  earth. 
He  shed  lustre  on  his  own  ordained  circle."  He  adds,  "Episcopal  prerogatives  pre- 
scribed by  the  law  of  the  Church."  The  ordination  service  in  making  and  consecrating 
a  Bishop,  assumes  that  the  person  ordained  is  called  of  God  to  the  special  ministry  of 
a  Bishop,  as  distinguished  from  Elder  and  Deacon,  for  each  of  which  orders  we  have  a 
separate  ordination.  Dr.  Elliott  says,  "no  change  which  obstructs  them  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duty,  can  be  effected  constitutionally  by  the  General  Conference.  Dr. 
Emory  argues  at  length,  and  conclusively,  that  a  resort  to  the  solemnities  of  ordina- 
tion, in  the  case  of  mere  appointment  to  labor,  is  a  novelty  unknown  to  Methodism,  nnd 
treats  the  supposition  as  absurd  and  ridiculous.  In  these  quotations,  the  Church  dde- 
gates  power  to  the  Bishop  ;  this  power  no  longer  belongs  to  the  Presbyters  ;  the  Church 
singles  out  men  for  the  exercise  of  Episcopal  power ;  the  Bishop  presides,  the  Presby- 


132 

ters  concur ;  the  latter  are  restricted  by  law — by  mutual  consent  in  the  act  of  delega- 
ting power;  difference  of  order  in  the  sense  before  noticed,  is  argued  from  difference 
of  title;  authority  and  right  are  not  derived  from  election  in  any  conclusive  sense.  The 
Bishop  is  chosen  overseer  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  accredited  by  the  highest  warrant  of 
earth  ;  his  prerogatives  settled  by  prescription  of  law  ;  his  circle  is  his  own — an  exclu- 
sive sphere;  his  ministry  is  special,  by  God's  appointment;  the  General  Confereace  even, 
is  without  power  or  right,  (unless  usurped,)  to  obstruct  him  in  the  discharge  of  duty;  or- 
dination is  a  sacred  consecration  to  office,  not  a  mere  appointment  to  labor,  as  most  ab- 
surdly contended  by  the  late  General  Conference.  Can  a  tithe  of  all  this  claim  be  found 
in  the  Protest]  Does  that  instrument  go  half  as  far  as  these  guides  of  the  Church] 
And  beside,  the  Protest  merely  designed  asserting  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Church  on 
the  subject,  and  showing  that  it  had  been  departed  from,  and  was  misrepresented  by  the 
Majority.  The  object  of  the  Protest  was,  to  show  that  the  General  Conference  claimed 
what,  by  constitutional  right,  belonged  to  the  Episcopacy:  and,  moreover,  attempted  to 
assert  the  claim  by  unlawful  means.  The  Conference,  for  example,  assumed  the  right 
within  themselves,  to  make  and  constitute  Bishops  ;  they  assumed  the  power  of  removal 
because  permitted  by  the  Annual  Conferences  to  select  the  incumbent ;  they  claimed 
that  the  powers  invested  in  the  Episcopacy  before  the  General  Conference  existed,  were 
nevertheless,  found  only  in  themselves;  that  they  could  rightfully  perform  all  the  func- 
tionS  of  Episcopacy— that  they  could  make  a  Bishop  to  day  and  unmake  him  to-morrow, 
without  any  infringement  of  right,  the  preposterous  absurdity  was  avowed  that  they 
could  of  right,  having  all  power,  do  any  thing  they  saw  proper,  not  only  without  law 
.  but  in  violation  of  it,  excepting  only  the  half  dozen  items  prohibited  in  the  Restrictive 
Rules.  It  is  not  meant  to  say  that  all  these  positions  were  formally  avowed  bv  the 
Conference  as  such,  but  each  was  assumed  in  behalf  of  the  Conference,  as  may  be  seen 
by  reference  to  the  Debates,  the  Manifesto,  and  the  Northern  advocates  of  subsequent 
date,  and  so  far  as  we  know,  none  of  them  have  been  disavowed  by  any  considerable 
portion  of  the  Northern  Church.  Each  has  the  ineffaceable  endorsement  of  Bishop 
Hamline,  and  has  received  the  equally  ineffaceable  endorsement  of  the  Majority  in  his 
election.  In  a  word,  we  have  the  type  of  a  New  Episcopacy.  We  have  the  effect  of 
additional  legislation  without  its  forms,  changing  the  relations  and  rights,  if  not  en- 
tirely subverting  the  old  Wesleyan  Episcopacy  of  the  Church.  Which  is  the  better 
theory — which  should  be  preferred  by  the  Church  is  a  question  not  in  dispute.  The 
charge  preferred  against  the  Majority  is,  that  they  have  innovated  upon  ihe  existing 
system,  and  have  done  so  by  means  unlawful  and  dangerous,  because  revolutionary  in 
their  tendency. 

Dr.  Bangs  says,  "three  forms  of  consecration,  all  separate  and  distinct."  Among 
the  grounds  of  Episcopal  claim  in  his  own  instance,  Bishop  Asbury  ranks  "divine  au- 
thority," "seniority  in  America,"  "ordination,"  by  Coke  and  others,  and  the  "signs  of 
an  Apostle,"  (meaning  the  manifest  approval  of  Heaven  and  the  Church)  showing  that 
although  he  certainly  attached  value  to  his  election  (by  being  "received"  as  the  ap- 
pointee of  Wesley,)  yet  he  did  not  rely  upon  it  as  in  itself  accrediting  his  Episcopal 
claims.  Coke  and  Asbury  inform  us  that  the  Episcopacy  instituted  by  Wesley  in  the 
consecration  of  Coke,  and  the  "commission"  he  gave  him  to  consecrate  Asbury  as 
Bishop,  was  acknowledged  and  received  by  the  Conference  of  1784,  as  "the  chief  Synod 
of  the  Church."  They  well  knew  this  Conference  of  Lay  Preachers  could  do  nothing 
more  than  acknowledge  and  receive.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  declares  her 
Bishops  to  be  "called  of  God,  according  to  his  word,  to  the  work  and  office  of  a  Bishop," 
and  unless  God  and  his  word  be  mocked,  all  conventional  "regulations"  will  be  con- 


^,  •        133 

formed  to  this  great  primary  fact,  assumed  by  the  Church.  The  "directions"  of  Wes- 
ley, forming  the  only  warrant  of  the  American  societies  to  become  a  separate  organi- 
zation, recognized  no  right  of  election  by  the  preachers,  in  view  of  the  Episcopal  of- 
fice. They  had  avowed  and  published  their  want  of  right,  their  utter  incompetency  to 
organize  a  Church  without  Wesley — of  course  they  could  not  elect  Bishops.  The  full 
•validity  of  our  Episcopacy,  as  exclusively  derived  from  Wesley,  must  be  admitted,  or 
we  have  none.  There  is  no  Presbytery  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  except  as 
created  by  its  Episcopacy,  and  the  supposition  that  Episcopacy  was  accredited  by  what 
itself  had  produced,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  not  the  theory  of  Methodical  Episcopacy, 
as  set  forth  by  all  the  defenders  of  the  Church,  and  especially  in  the  authorities  to 
which  we  appeal  in  the  brief  argument  we  are  now  sketching.  Is  there  any  thing  in 
the  Protest  elevating  the  Episcopacy  to  half  the  height  indicated  by  the  positions  just 
cited?  And  how  do  they  contrast  with  the  newly  adopted  creed  of  the  Majority,  which 
throws  around  a  Bishop  such  an  ambiguity  of  right  claim  and  relation,  "now  high,  now 
low,"  that  instead  of  his  taking  his  place  in  the  government  as  an  officer  of  the  consti- 
tution, with  well  defined  rights  and  corresponding  duties  and  claims,  subject  only  to 
the  control  of  law,  he  is  but  the  quadrennial  agent  of  a  General  Conference  Majority, 
and  is  liable  to  removal  or  degradation,  whenever  they  deem  it  expedient  to  exercise 
the  power  they  assume?  The  advocates  of  the  new  theory  will  of  course  allege  that 
the  presbyters  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  at  any  rate,  regular  Presby- 
terial  ordination,  and  that  since  they  obtained  it,  it  has  been  competent  for  them  to 
create  an  Episcopacy  upon  the  Stillingfleet  model.  This,  however,  will  involve  sev- 
eral difficulties. 

1st.  Methodist  Episcopacy  did  not  so  originate,  had  no  such  origin— the  truth  of  his- 
tory can  never  give  it  such  a  character;  nor  has  an  Episcopacy  of  this  kind  ever  been 
instituted  by  them.  Our  Episcopacy,  and  the  plan  of  its  perpetuation,  both  pre-date 
the  existence  of  Presbyters.  The  right  and  power  of  ordination,  as  they  existed  in 
Wesley,  were  transferred  to  our  Bishops,  and  constitutionally  invested  in  them,  before  a 
Presbyter  existed  in  the  Church.  The  constitution  of  the  Church  at  the  time  of  its  or- 
ganization, and  ever  since,  deprives  the  Presbyters  of  the  power  of  ordination  while 
there  is  a  Bishop  in  the  Church. 

2d.  The  order  of  succession  precludes  the  supposition,  that  for  the  reason  assigned, 
the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  The  organic  laws  of 
the  Church  in  the  very  provision  which  gave  being  to  Presbyters,  as  such,  restricted  all 
the  rights  of  ordination  to  the  Episcopacy,  and  declare  that  this  investiture  c&n  only  be- 
come void  by  the  extinction  of  the  original  order  of  Bishops.  The  right  of  the  Presby- 
ters to  select  the  incumbent  does  not  affect  the  argument.  The  Presbyters  may  select 
a  thousand  to  be  made  Bishops,  but  in  themselves  can  never  make  one,  while  a  solitary 
incumbent  of  the  office  survives  in  the  Church. 

3d.  Should  the  only  alternative  contingency  which  can  possibly  give  the  right  of 
Episcopal  ordination  to  the  Presbyters  ever  take  place,  the  right  does  not  belong  to 
them  one  moment  after  its  exercise  in  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop.  They  can  in  no 
event,  by  the  constitution,  ordain  an  Elder  or  Deacon,  or  more  than  one  Bishop  at  a 
time.  The  moment  their  consecration  of  a  Bishop  is  complete,  the  right  of  ordination 
ceases  to  exist  in  the  Presbyters.  This  may  not  be  as  it  should  bp,  if  any  will  have  it 
so,  but  we  have  only  to  do  with  things  as  they  are,  as  we  find  them  in  the  constitution 
and  the  laws. 

4th.  From  the  preceding  data,  it  is  clear,  that  until  the  existing  theory  of  Methodist 
Church  polity  is  utterly  subverted,  it  can  never  become  the  right  of  the  Presbyters  of 


134 

the  Church  to  change  the  character  of  our  present  Episcopacy  or  institute  one  of  a  dif- 
ferent kind. 

But  let  us  see  further  how  others  have  thought  and  reasoned  on  the  general  subject : 
Dr.  Coke,  speaking  of  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  1784,  under  the  direction  of 
himself  and  Asbury,  as  Bishops,  by  appointment  of  Wesley,  says,  "Mr.  Wesley  has  de- 
termined the  point."    The  Discipline  informs  us  that  Wesley  "commissioned  and  direct- 
ed" Dr.  Coke  to  set  apart  Mr.  Asbury  as  Bishop. 

Dr.  Bangs  says,  "the  Traveling  Ministry,  consisting  of  licensed  Preachers,  Deacons, 
Elders,  Bishops.  The  duties  of  each  are  prescribed  and  constitutional  restraints  limit 
the  power  of  each  officer  in  the  execution  of  his  trust.  Regular  tribunals  are  constitu- 
ted, rules  of  judgment  are  laid  down,  and  the  whole  process  by  which  the  supposed 
delinquent  is  to  be  tried,  acquitted,  or  condemned,  is  clearly  defined  and  prescribed." 
The  Bishops  in  their  address,  1844,  discussing  the  constitutional  limits  of  their  office, 
say,  "the  office  of  a  Bishop  is  almost  exclusively  executive."  Dr.  Emory  insists  that  to 
do  justice  to  the  character  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  it  is  essential,  while  we  claim  for 
it  no  elevation  above  the  primary  rights  of  the  Presbytery  or  body  of  Elders,  as  it  re- 
gards the  original  power  of  ordination,  superiority  must  be  claimed  on  the  ground  of 
special  investment,  in  relation  both  to  the  power  of  ordination  and  of  jurisdiction,  and 
that  this  power  can  only  be  invested  by  Episcopal  consecration,  as  constitutionally  pro- 
vided for.  Bishop  Asbury,  in  attempting  to  show  how  the  Episcopal  character  of  Tim- 
othyj  types  the  true  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  in  modern  times,  distinguishes  his  Epis- 
copal ordination  by  St.  Paul,  from  his  Presbyterial  ordination  by  "laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  Presbytery,"  and  transferring  his  reasoning  to  Methodist  Episcopacy,  it  is  plainly 
his  purpose  to  show,  that  special  consecration  is  essential  to  the  office,  and  that  election 
is  nothing  more  than  a  mere  expression  of  choice  and  endorsement  of  personal  fitness. 
That  Bishops  Emory  and  Waugh  took  the  same  view  of  the  subject  at  the  date  of  Bish- 
op Soule's  election,  is  plain  from  the  language  they  held  with  regard  to  him;  they  say, 
"just  elected  to  the  Episcopal  office,  not  yet  ordained  or  even  an  existing  Bishop  in 
fact."  In  their  judgment  ordination  was  essentially  constituent  of  the  office.  And  in 
this  way,  in  seemingly  unrelated  but  nevertheless  essentially  connected  parts  and  par- 
cels, the  evidence  increases  upon  us  at  every  step  in  ihe  examination,  that  Episcopacy 
in  the  organic  economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  a  constitutional  principle 
of  government  and  law,  and  is  only  subject  to  the  control  of  the  General  Conference 
by  regulation  of  law,  as  will  further  be  seen  in  the  progress  of  the  argument. 

Morrell  says,  "Mr.  Wesley  framed  the  constitution  of  our  Church."  "Dr.  Coke  had 
the  orders  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  ordain  Superintendents.''  "Dr.  Coke  did  actually  ordain 
three  orders."  Dr.  Phoebus  says,  "our  government  grew  up  under  the  appointment  of  a 
Superintendent  by  consent  of  preachers  and  people.  As  such  our  Episcopacy  is  con- 
stitutional. It  cannot  be  altered  but  by  the  general  consent  of  preachers  and  people.  It 
must  be  done  by  the  common  consent  of  all  parties  concerned."  Sandford  distinctly  re- 
cognizes the  "constitution"  of  the  Church,  as  recommended  by  Wesley  and  adopted  by 
the  Conference  of  1784.  Morrell  says,  "it  was  written  in  our  constitution."  He  tells 
us  Wesley's  name  was  left  off  the  American  Minutes,  as  the  head  of  the  American 
connection,  to  prevent  him  from  exercising  "unconstitutional  power"  in  the  recall  or 
removal  of  Bishop  Asbury.  Title  page  of  Discipline  in  1786  says,  "forming  the  con- 
stitution of  said  Church/'  The  preface  to  the  fifth  edition  of  the  Discipline  styles  that 
Discipline  the  "cnnslitutioii  of  our  Church."  Dr.  Bangs  speaks  of  the  "organization," 
that  is,  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  requiring  duties  and  conferring  privileges  pecu- 
liar to  each  order  and  office  of  the  ministry,  and  affirms  "so  long  as  these  duties  are 


135 

performed  with  fidelity,  the  annexed  privileges  are  freely  and  amply  secured."  In  the 
address  of  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  it  is  avowed  "the  General  Rules  and  the 
Articles  of  Religion  form,  to  every  member  of  our  Church  distinctively,  a  constitution." 
In  1739,  the  Discipline  claims  to  be  the  "constitution  of  the  Church."  R.  Emory  re- 
marks, "in  1808  an  important  change  was  made  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church  by  the 
establishment  of  a  delegated  General  Conference."  Dr.  Bangs  says  the  object  had  in 
view  by  the  Annual  Conferences  before  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference  in  1808, 
was  "to  provide  for  a  future  delegated  General  Conference,  whose  powers  should  be 
defined  and  limited  by  constitutional  restrictions."  These  and  similar  testimonies  go  to 
show  a  constitutional  investment  and  distribution  of  rights  and  powers  among  the  sever- 
al departments  and  various  offices  of  the  Church,  including  especially  the  Episcopacy 
and  General  Conference.  They  also  show  that  the  position  of  Bishop  Hamline  and 
others,  assuming  the  Restrictive  Articles  to  be  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  is  utterly 
unworthy  of  credit.  The  very  structure  of  the  government,  and  the  whole  history  of 
its  administration,  not  less  than  the  constantly  avowed  opinions  of  the  Church  since  its 
organization  in  1784,  demonstrate  most  conclusively,  that  the  position  is  without  any 
foundation  in  either  the  history  or  philosophy,  the  facts  or  reasons  of  Methodist  Church 
polity. 

We  have  seen  that  the  governing  power  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  belongs 
to  the  Traveling  Ministry,  and  that  the  question  at  issue  in  this  controversy  is,  how 
and  in  what  proportion  this  power  is  distributed  among  its  different  departments,  coun- 
cils, and  tribunals,  as  coming  into  existence  and  use,  and  being  created  and  established 
at  different  times.  Our  Church  organization  obviously  presents  several  departments, 
more  or  less  mixed  in  character  as  it  regards  their  functions,  but  still  sufficiently  dis- 
tinct and  independant  of  each  other  for  the  practical  purposes  of  government.  1st. 
The  Episcopacy  or  General  Superintendence'.  2d.  Annual  Conferences.  3d.  General 
Conferences.  4th.  The  General  Pastorate  or  Traveling  Ministry  in  their  appointed 
charges  of  labor  and  administration. 

We  notice  the  first  three  in  the  order  of  their  introduction  as  elementary  principles, 
giving  form  and  character  to  the  government.  All  are  to  be  regarded  as  great  consti- 
tutional arrangements.  Among  these  we  must  of  necessity  find  distributed,  the  Legis- 
lative, the  Judicial,  and  Executive  powers  of  the  government,  and  the  question  arises, 
what  is  the  distribution?  Or  is  it  true,  as  has  been  assumed,  that  there  is  no  actual 
distribution,  nor  yet  any  law  of  distribution,  and  that  all  the  functions  of  government 
are  commingled  and  meshed  up  together,  to  be  exercised  at  discretion  by  the  several 
departments  and  organic  bodies  having  general  control.  That  the  distribution  has  not 
been  a  careful  and  well  settled  one  may  be  true,  but  the  assumption  that  there  has  been 
no  distribution  at  all,  affecting  the  different  classes  of  power,  except  in  a  few  instan- 
ces connected  with  each,  must,  we  think,  be  rejected  by  the  good  sense  of  the  Church. 
Many  of  the  authorities  already  cited,  throw  material  light  upon  this  subject,  and  show 
that  a  very  different  view  of  the  subject  has  obtained  among  the  most  distinguised  men 
of  the  Church  in  every  period  of  its  history.  In  answer  to  the  question,  "who  shall 
compose  the  General  Conference"!"  the  Discipline  says  expressly,  "one  of  the  General 
Superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General  Conference."  Again,  this  Presidency  or 
Headship  is  a  part  of  the  "Plan  of  General  Superintendences "  the  first  duty  of  the 
Bishop  is  "to  preside  in  our  Conferences,"  Annual  and  General.  Their  constitutional 
oversight  extends  to  all  the  "temporal  and  spiritual  business  of  the  Church,"  and  of 
course  and  especially  to  the  General  Conference,  as  that  body  does  a  large  share  of  the 
business  of  the  Church.  Walters,  the  first  American  Methodist  Preacher,  says,  "the 


136 

Bishops  business  is  to  preside  in  our  Conferences,  (Annual  and  General)  and  incase  of 
an  equal  division  on  a  question,  he  has  the  casting  vote."  Sandford  says,  "the  Gener- 
al Conference  is  composed  of  Bishops  who  are  its  Presidents,  &c."'  Dr.  Elliott  says, 
•  "to  preside  in  our  Conferences,  comprehends  the  Presidency  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence." Dr.  Coke  says  to  the  General  Conference  in  1808,  that  he  will  reside  in  Amer- 
ica permanently,  in  his  character  of  Bishop  if  the  Conference,  will  "agree  that  I  shall 
have  a  full  right  to  give  rny  judgment  in  every  thing  in  the  General  and  Annual  Con- 
ferences on  the  making  oj  laws,  the  stationing  of  the  Preachers,  sending  out  Mission- 
aries, and  every  thing  else,  which  as  a  Bishop,  belongs  to  my  office.  I  want  no  new 
condition  ;  I  only  want  it  to  be  perfectly  ascertained,  that  I  shall  be  authorized  by  you 
to  fulfil  my  office,  without  which,  our  reciprocal  engagements  are  a  perfect  nullity" 
Dr.  Bangs  speaks  of  "powers  ceded  to  the  Episcopacy."  Bishop  McKendree  says,  "by 
virtue  of  a  delegated  power  from  the  General  Conference,"  (as  the  organ  of  the 
Church's  authority  and  action,)  "I  hold  the  reigns  of  government."  Dr.  Bangs  says 
of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  "this  superintendency  is  provided  for  in  the  organization  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.',  In  their  Address,  in  1840,  the  Bishops  speak  of  the 
"constitutional  powers  of  the  General  Superintendants,  of  their  general  executive  admin- 
istration, and  their  official  department  in  the  Church."  Dr.  Emory  endorses  the  opinion 
of  Stillingfleet,  that  the  form  of  Church  government  which  approaches  nearest  the 
primitive,  is  the  "Presidency  of  Bishops  for  life."  At  the  General  Conference  of  1604, 
Dr.  Bangs  informs  us,  Coke,  Asbury,  and  Whatcoat,  acted  as  "Presidents  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference."  Mr.  Morrell  assures  us,  that  the  Conference  of  1787  decided  that 
even  "Mr.  Wesley  had  no  authority  to  remove  Mr.  Asbury,"  after  he  had  been  consti- 
tuted Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  Dr.  Emory 
says  of  Bishop  George,  "he  regarded  the  duties  of  his  place  and  office  as  specified  in 
the  Discipline,  in  the  light  of  a  contract,  by  which  he  had  solemnly  engaged  to  be 
bound."  In  1805,  Bishop  Asbury  gives  notice  to  the  "world"  that  he  considered  his 
election  by  the  Conference  of  Lay  Preachers  in  1784,  as  but  one  of  several  sources  whence 
he  derived  his  Episcopal  authority'.  Coke  and  Asbury  say,  "Episcopacy  took  its  rise 
in  Wesley."  They  rank  it  among  the  functions  of  Episcopacy,  "to  meliorate  the  se- 
verity of  Discipline,  to  relieve  the  people  under  every  oppression.  In  them  (the  Bish- 
ops) the  people  have  a  refuge — to  them  they  may  appeal,  and  before  them  lay  all  their 
complaints  and  grievances."  The  Discipline  of  1789  asks,  "how  is  a  Bishop  to  be 
constituted  in  future?"  Election  a  new  method  of  selecting  the  incumbent.  It  may 
strike  the  reader  that  there  is  in  these  citations  no  principle  of  coherence  affording  any 
reason  why  they  should  appear  in  the  same  connection.  It  must  be  recollected,  howev- 
er, that  it  is  the  simple  object  of  these  strictures  to  show  that  the  Protest  did  not  as- 
sume, in  behalf  of  the  Episcopacy,  any  thing  beyond  its  allowed  claims,  currently 
conceded  in  the  doctrines  and  history  of  the  Church.  Any  proofs,  therefore,  going  to 
show  what  these  claims  have  been  for  sixty  years,  must  be  directly  pertinent  as  well 
as  important.  The  testimonies  just  quoted,  prove  that  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  are,  by  constitutional  right,  Presidents  of  the  Annual  and  General  Con- 
ferences, and  of  course  are  members  and  integral  parts  of  them,  when  in  session,  be- 
side having  the  executive  oversight  of  all  the  members  of  both,  in  the  intervals  of  their 
meeting.  The  Discipline  includes  them  with  others,  in  "composing"  the  Body.  Pres- 
idency and  oversight  are  scarcely  compatible  with  the  idea  of  their  being  the  mere 
chairmen  of  Conference  meetings.  The  right  of  discussion,  of  expressing  their  opin- 
ions on  all  subjects,  of  recommendation  and  remonstrance,  seems  to  be  a  necessary  in- 
ference. It  is  claimed  by  Dr.  Coke  as  belonging  to  the  office.  The  reins  of  government 


137 

are  held  by  delegated  power,  that  is,  power  parted  with  and  given  in  trust  for  specified 
purposes.  Bishops  have  constitutional  powers;  the  general  executive  adtninisiralion  is 
theirs;  their  official  relations,  rights,  and  duties,  constitute  a  regular  department;  their 
Presidency  is  for  life,  unless  forfeited  by  misconduct;  the  appointing  power  cannot  re- 
move, except  for  reasons  destroying  the  objects  of  the  appointment ;  the  official  relations 
of  a  Bishop  imply  a  contract  between  himself  and  the  Church.  Election  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  institution  of  the  office,  and  is  but  an  auxiliary  method  of  perpetuating 
it ;  the  office  arose  in  Wesley,  and  comes  in  as  a  regulating  power  between  the  minis- 
try and  people.  We  attempt  no  defence  of  the  various  forms  of  expression  used, 
or  claims  put  forth  in  the  passages  quoted.  What  we  may  approve  or  disapprove 
weighs  nothing  in  the  controversy.  Our  business  is  to  show  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
Church  on  the  subject. 

Among  other  items  regarded  by  the  South  as  signs  of  the  times  with  the  Northern 
Majority,  may  be  noticed  the  manifest  indifference  and  irreverence  with  which  the 
solemnities  of  the  Episcopal  ordination  service  have  been  treated.  It  has  doubtless 
been  seen  and  felt  that  truth  and  falsehood  resemble  as  little  as  the  new  theory  of 
Episcopacy  and  the  ceremony  in  question.  And  if  the  former  be  true,  the  latter  is 
certainly  a  chapter  of  rare  foolishness,  and  ought  to  be  expunged,  as  Bishop  Hamline 
cautiously  suggests  it  might  be,  without  detriment  to  Methodism,  as  we  use  no  such 
ceremony  in  the  appointment  of  Book  Agents,  Editors,  Class  Leaders,  &c.,  all  of 
course  (the  assumption  is)  sustaining,  as  agents,  the  same  relation  to  the  Church!  But 
Jet  us  look  into  this  matter  a  little.  The  ordination  service  styled  the  "/orm  and  man- 
ner  of  malting  and  ordaining  a  Bishop,"  assumes  that  the  person  so  ordained  is  called 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  special  ministry  of  a  Bishop  as  distinguished  from  both  Pres- 
byter find  D<?acon,  for  each  of  which  orders  we  have  a  separate  ordination  service  in  no 
way  inclusive  of  the  first  office  or  Episcopal  consecration.  It  is  assumed  that  he  is 
called  to  be  a  Bishop,  to  a  ministration  distinguished  from  all  others  according  to  the 
will  of  Christ.  It  is  assumed  that  being  divinely  called,  he  is  by  the  act  of  ordination, 
admitted  to  government  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  He  is  said  to  be  thus  admitted  to  a 
peculiar  administration.  The  people,  the  Church  of  God,  "including  the  Presbyters," 
Dr.  Emory  adds,  are  said  to  be  committed  to  his  charge  by  the  same  act,  and  so  of  ma- 
ny other  assumptions  to  the  same  effect.  Can  the  man  who  regards  a  Bishop  as  the 
mere  agent  or  officer  of  the  General  Conference,  liable  at  any  time  to  removal  or  depo- 
sition, at  the  will  of  the  Majority,  without  impeachment  or  trial,  or  even  cause  assign- 
ed, be  prepared  for  honest  subscription  or  submission  to  a  ceremony  of  consecration, 
every  clause  of  which  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  his  avowed  opinions  as  to  the 
real  character  of  the  Episcopal  office?  How  will  this  matter  be  regarded  by  the  well 
informed  and  pious  masses  of  the  Church,  even  in  the  North!  Will  they  not  agree 
with  Bishop  Emory,  that  it  is  "mockery,  a  trifling  with  sacred  things."  Take  the  ac- 
tion of  the  General  Conference  in  electing,  and  that  of  the  proper  officers  in  ordaining 
a  Bishop.  They  call  him  to  the  work  and  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  name  of  God,  and  as 
His  representatives.  They  declare  him  called  of  Christ  and  gifted  with  the  graces  of 
his  spirit  "evermore"  to  perform  the  duties  and  "fulfil  the  course"  of  a  Christian  Bish- 
op. They  recognize  his  official  elevation  as  God's  own  appointment,  and  during  life. 
The  consecration  is  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  sanctioned  and  accredited  by  the  solem- 
nities of  the  sacrament.  Now  if  all  this  mean  that  a  Bishop  may  be  used  to-day  and 
laid  aside  to-morrow,  without  proof  (which  due  form  of  trial  can  alone  safely  test)  that 
the  consecrated  person  chosen  of  God  for  the  purpose,  has  disqualified  himself  for  the 
trust  reposed  in  him.  by  a  forfeiture ot  the  <?ivine  approval;  we  repeat,  if  the  ceremony 


138 

mean  nothing  inconsistent  with  such  a  view  of  the  subject,  then  is  our  ordination  ser- 
vice not  only  unmeaning,  but  so  fraught  with  the  fearful  significance  of  being  an 
ungodly  mockery,  that  the  sooner  it  is  laid  aside  the  better.  I  need  not  remind  the 
readers  of  the  Northern  papers,  that  there  are  already  indications  by  no  mean*  ob- 
scure, that  the  inconsistency  between  the  new  Episcopal  theory  and  the  ordination  ser- 
vice, will  require  their  early  attention,  unless  it  is  found  expedient  to  adjourn  the 
movement  to  a  "more  convenient  season"  for  reform.  The  innovation  under  notice, 
must  prove  extensively  mischievous  in  its  bearings.  It  subverts  the  foundation  and 
destroys  the  tenure  of  the  ministerial  office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  entirely. 
If  ordination  in  the  instance  of  a  Bishop,  mean  mere  appointment  to  labour,  and  may 
be  fairly  typed  by  the  appointment  of  a  Class  Leader  or  Editor,  similar  views  will 
doubtless  obtain  with  regard  to  the  ordination  of  Elder  and  Deacon,  as  there  is  nothing 
more  solemn  or  sanctioning  in  the  latter  than  the  former,  and  the  result  will  be,  the 
high  and  holy  function  of  the  Ministry,  severed  from  the  fastenings  of  its  immemorial 
sanctity,  will  be  sacred  only  to  the  purposes  of  ecclesiastical  sway  and  party  domi- 
nation. The  position  we  are  now  opposing,  strikes  us  as  the  more  strange  and  sur- 
prising, because  we  have  no  accredited  instance  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  of 
ministerial  ordination,  except  for  life,  upon  condition  of  good  behaviour.  The  rights 
and  privileges  conferred  by  ordination,  as  Bishop  Emory  properly  suggests,  are  mat- 
ter of  "contract"  between  the  parties,  and  while  either  party  does  not  offend  the  laws 
of  the  Church,  the  rights  and  privileges  reciprocally  involved,  are  perpetual.  On 
this  ground  alone,  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  must  be  viewed  as  an  outrage  upon  his  legal  and  personal  rights.  It  was, 
moreover,  a  violation  of  the  pledge  of  the  Church,  given  in  his  ordination  credentials, 
in  which  the  protection  and  support  of  the  Church  are  solemnly  guarantied,  "so  long 
as  his  spirit,  practice,  and  doctrine,  are  such  as  become  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
he  shall  submit  to  and  maintain  the  Discipline  and  order  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America."  It  is  well  known  the  Majority  did  not  even  allege  offence,  either 
against  the  laws  of  Christ  or  of  the  Church,  and  yet  in  gross  violation  of  this  official 
pledge,  they  withdrew  the  protection  and  support  the  Church  had  promised.  Such  con- 
duct shows  that  God  in  his  word  is  not  allowed  to  be  the  judge  of  sin,  of  right  and 
wrong,  nor  yet  the  Church  in  her  laws,  but  that  the  caprice  and  resentments  of  party 
opinion  and  feeling,  are  to  become  the  rule  of  action  and  standard  of  ministerial  and 
personal  worth. 

The  several  Annual  Conferences  up  to  1792,  were  always  considered  as  separate  and 
independent  bodies,  and  it  was  not  likely,  says  Dr.  Bangs,  ''that  so  many  independent 
bodies  could  be  brought  to  harmonize  in  all  things.  The  several  Annual  Conferences 
were  considered  only  as  so  many  parts  of  the  whole  body,  nothing  was  considered  bind- 
ing upon  all,  unless  it  were  approved  by  each  and  every  of  these  separate  Conferences." 
Bishop  Asbury  styles  the  General  Conference  a  "grand  federal  and  responsire  body." 
The  federal  relations  and  reciprocity  of  right  assumed  by  Bishop  Asbury,  were  merely 
modified,  not  destroyed  by  the  change,  or  rather  addition  to  the  constitution,  giving 
birth  to  the  delegated  General  Conference.  It  is  still  a  federal  responsive  body,  as 
represented  in  the  Protest,  and  this  very  fact  gives  the  reason  of  the  limitation  of1  its 
powers.  "The  General  Conference  consists  of  an  equal  representation  from  lite  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences,"  says  Dr.  Bangs.  In  what  proportion,  then,  do  we  seek  the 
constitutional  inherence  of  power  in  each?  This  will  of  course  depend  upon  the  fact 
of  distribution,  already  adverted  to.  In  the  General  Conference  certainly  so  far  as  the 
constitution  clothes  them  with  power.  To  this  extent  it  is  always  competent  Tor  that 


139 


body  to  act  without  control,  and  informs  absolutely  conclusive.  The  constitulion, 
however,  is  the  only  commission  under  which  any  of  the  departments  can  rightfully  act. 
And  what  we  wish  to  achieve,  believing  it  to  be  the  truth,  is  to  show  that  the  consti- 
tution intended  something  like  an  equal  distribution  of  the  powers  of  government  among 
its  different  departments.  When  once,  some  score  of  years  since,  acting  upon  our 
then  understanding  of  things,  we  honestly  believed  the  Episcopacy  was  likely  to  dis- 
turb this  balance  of  power,  by  claiming  for  itself  more  than  its  constitutional  share, 
we  opposed  the  supposed  usurpation,  as  now  we  oppose  that  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. We  should  do  the  same  thing  with  regard  to  the  Annual  Conferences  or  gener- 
al Pastorate,  were  they  so  to  act  as  to  produce  a  similar  conviction.  The  doctrine  for 
which  we  contend,  is  simply  something  like  a  substantial  co-ordination  of  powers  among 
the  different  departments  of  the  government.  This  result  secured,  we  ask  for  nothing 
more.  And  if  to  secure  it  the  reduction  of  Episcopal  power  shall  be  found  necessary, 
we  shall  promptly  favor  the  reduction. 

The  doctrine  of  Bishop  Hamline,  which  seems  to  be  extensively  endorsed  in  the 
North,  affirming  Geaeral  Conference  prerogative  to  be  a  just  law  of  action,  without  de- 
fining or  publishing  the  mode  of  action,  we  reject  and  resist  in  all  its  forms,  as  at 
once  dangerous  and  inadmissible  in  any  government.  One  of  its  necessary  conse- 
quences, is  expost  facto  legislation,  without  even  the  usual  disguise  of  legislative  and 
judicial  construction.  Take  for  instance,  the  right  claimed  in  behalf  of  the  General 
Conference  to  appoint  the  Preachers  to  their  pastoral  charges.  This  right  never  did 
belong  to  the  General  Conference,  nor  can  it  while  the  present  constitution  of  the 
Church  exists.  If  the  whole  Book  of  Discipline  be  regarded  as  the  constitution,  in 
general  terms,  the  right  is  denied  to  the  General  Conference ;  and  if,  with  Bishop  Ham- 
line,  we  receive  the  restrictive  articles  as  the  constitution,  they  expressly  prohibit  the 
General  Conference  from  any  such  attempt,  as  this  right  of  appointment  forms  the 
most  important  part  of  the  plan  of  General  Superintendency,  which  they  are  not  al- 
lowed to  destroy.  But  the  logic  is,  the  General  Conference  elect  the  Bishops,  and  may 
therefore  perform  all  the  duties  of  Bishops,  if  they  prefer  it.  Extend  the  rule  a  little 
and  see  how  it  will  work.  The  Annual  Conferences  elect  the  General  Conference,  and 
therefore,  if  they  prefer,  may  not  only  perform  all  its  constitutional  duties,  but  by  the 
same  rule,  get  at  those  of  the  Episcopacy  also.  This  single  dogma  carried  into  prac- 
tice, would  immediately  subvert  the  whole  government  of  the  Church.  Witness  its 
effect  in  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  Bishop  Andrews'  case,  and  the 
consequences  with  which  it  has  been  attended. 

The  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  certainly  somewhat  irregular 
and  anomalous  in  form  ;  still  it  has  essentially  its  co-ordinate  departments,  especially 
the  Episcopacy,  Annual  Conferences  and  the  General  Conference,  by  no  means  excluding 
the  ministry  in  pastoral  charge,  apart  from  their  Conference  relations.  It  is  an  impos- 
sible theory  to  suppose  a  government  without  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  pow- 
ers, and  irregularly  as  these  are  distributed,  they  are  found  in  the  o.bove  departments. 
The  General  Conference  has  limited  legislative  power.  It  has  also  a  substantive  por- 
tion of  judicial  power,  having  original  jurisdiction  in  the  case  of  Bishops,  and  appel- 
late in  the  instance  of  members  of  Annual  Conferences.  The  Annual  Conferences 
have  a  large  share  of  judicial  power,  retaining  in  their  hands  an  important  portion  of 
the  legislative,  and  meanwhile  exercising  to  a  considerable  extent,  executive  functions. 
The  Episcopacy  is  emphatically  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Church,  or  rather  of  the 
government,  with  scarcely  a  tithe  of  power  from  the  other  classes.  Some  of  the  func- 
tions of-  the  General  Conference  appear  more  or  less  executive  in  character,  but  in  no 


-*LHMKT    -.<^BIK  140 

sense  does  the  General  Conference  possess  any  considerable  portion  of  executive  power. 
It  will  be  perceived  at  once,  by  the  good  sense  of  the  reader,  that  from  the  mixed  char- 
acter of  Ilie  distribution  of  power  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
it  becomes  the  more  necessary  to  guard  against  the  encroachment  of  one  department 
upon  another.  Such  encroachment  as  shown  at  large  in  this  Review,  has  given  birth 
to  our  present  difficulties,  and  the  controversy  in  which  the  Church  is  now  so  unhappi- 
ly involved.  We  have  no  wish  to  reduce  the  constitutional  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, or  increase  that  of  the  Episcopacy.  We  wish  no  function  of  the  General  Con- 
ference transferred  to  the  Episcopacy.  We  would  not  add  to  the  aggregate  of  Episco- 
pal power  a  single  iota,  were  all  the  powers  of  the  government  within  our  gift.  What 
we  except  to  and  resist,  is  the  hitherto  unheard  of  claim  of  nearly  absolute  power  put 
forth  by  the  Majority  of  the  General  Conference  in  May  Jast.  The  position  that  "the 
Bishop's  term  of  service  may  be  limited  or  undetermined  at  pleasure,"  is  so  utterly  unsup- 
ported by  evidence  of  any  kind,  and  manifestly  inconsistent  with  all  the  evidence  we 
have  in  the  case,  that  its  bare  announcement  furnishes  its  own  disproof.  The  position 
invades  the  constitution  at  every  point  in  which  it  can  be  viewed.  It  is  contradicted 
by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  ordination  service,  without  which  we  can  have  no  constitu- 
tional Episcopacy.  It  is  disavowed,  in  terms,  by  the  official  certificate  of  ordination. 
It  is  without  any  sanction  from  the  Discipline.  It  is  discredited  by  all  usage,  and  pos- 
sesses every  attribute  of  a  gross  and  daring  innovation.  And  yet  all  these  revolutiona- 
ry doctrines  and  legal  absurdities,  received  the  full  practical  sanction  of  the  General 
Conference.  The  principal  asserter  of  them  became  their  authoritative  type  and  living 
impersonation,  by  the  highest  marks  of  approval  and  confidence  within  the  gift  of  the 
Majority.  The  doctrine  in  question,  therefore,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Majority,  and  we 
are  thus  minute,  with  no  view  of  calling  attention  to  individual  character,  but  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  showing  that  the  party  claiming  to  be  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
par  excellence,  is  the  party  by  whom  the  constitution  of  the  Church  has  been  notorious- 
ly disregarded,  and  its  rights  in  the  same  proportion  forfeited.  The  General  Confer- 
ence acts  under  the  authority  of  but  a  limited  commission,  and  the  measure  of  its  su- 
premacy is  determined  by  the  limits  the  constitution  imposes.  Its  powers  are  in  no 
sense  absolute,  but  as  properly  under  the  control  of  the  constitution  as  those  of  any 
other  department. 

Dr.  Coke  was  the  father  of  the  General  Conference  system,  and  in  his  circular  in 
1791,  urging  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  his  plan,  he  proposes  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  sum,  "as  a  check  upon  every  thing,"  that  is  a  great  regulating  principle  of  gov- 
ernment, not  overriding  and  capriciously  controlling  the  other  departments,  but  subject- 
ing their  action  and  administration  to  proper  revision  and  restraint,  to  be  regulated  by 
law.  As  connected  with  the  Presidency  of  the  General  Conference,  Bishops  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  giving  their  opinions  and  advice,  offering  resolutions,  and  even  voting  in 
the  instance  of  a  tie.  The  practice,  however,  has  varied  at  different  times,  and  with 
different  men.  As  lately  as  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  one  Bishop  offered  a  series 
of  resolutions,  which  were  adopted  by  the  Conference,  and  another  gave  the  casting 
vote  on  an  important  question,  to  which  no  exception  was  taken,  and  both  these  acts, 
stated  upon  the  Journals,  were  subsequently  approved  by  the  Conference,  without  dis- 
sent. In  fact  the  Presidents  have  always  been  recognized  as  constitutional  members  of 
the  General  Conference,  until  the  new  era  of  1944.  They  are  there  and  such  by  com- 
mission of  the  constitution.  Bishop  Asbury  left  the  sittings  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1792,  and  after  absenting  himself,  wrote  back  to  the  Conference,  "I  am  happily  ex- 
cused from  helping  to  make  laics  by  which  I  myself  am  to  be  governed;"  showing  plain- 


141 

]y  that  he  considered  himself  a  member  of  the  body,  with  right  to  assist  in  making 
laws.  Coke  was  in  the  habit  of  introducing  formal  resolutions  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. So  was  Asbury.  Other  Bishops  have  done  the  same.  Coke  and  Asbury  say, 
"all  the  different  orders  that  compose  our  Conferences;"  showing  that  Bishops  were 
regarded  as  constitutional  members  of  the  Conferences  in  which  they  preside,  whether 
Annual  or  General.  If  Bishops  are  not  a  constitutional  part  of  the  General  Conference, 
why  do  they  meet  and  preside  by  requirement  of  law1?  Why  is  their  signature  neces- 
sary to  the  validity  of  the  Journals  and  the  authority  of  official  documents]  Is  the 
Presidency  of  the  General  Conference  no  part  of  it?  In  every  organic  sense  is  not  the 
President  the  head  of  the  body?  Can  this  be  true  without  his  belonging  to  the  body? 
Bishops  are  ex-cfficio,  by  right  of  office,  Presidents  of  the  General  Conference,  and  in 
that  body  are  constitutional  representatives  of  the  Church  at  large.  The  very  constitu- 
tion of  the  General  Conference  includes  the  presence  and  Presidency  of  a  Bishop.  In  the 
Bishops' address  of  1840,  all  the  various  "judicatories  of  the  Church"  are  recognized 
as  "constitutional  ;"  of  course  the  Presidency  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences 
are  among  the  constitutional  arrangements  alluded  to.  About  a  Bishop's  right  to  speak 
or  vote,  we  shall  not  contend.  We  are  only  anxious  to  show  his  constitutional  relation 
as  President  of  the  body.  Placed  there  by  the  constitution  to  preside  as  the  end  of  the 
appointment,  whatever  means  may  be  necessary  to  accomplish  the  end,  he  is  constitu- 
tionally allowed  to  avail  himself  of,  as  an  obvious  incidental  right,  and  beyond  this  it  is 
believed  no  claim  has  ever  been  made.  The  constitution  places  a  Bishop,  having  com- 
mon oversight  of  the  whole  Church,  in  the  General  Conference,  and  at  its  head,  as  the 
representative  of  the  general  departments  of  the  government,  and  especially  the  one  to 
•which  he  more  appropriately 'belongs.  Under  the  old  General  Conference  regimen  all 
the  Traveling  Preachers  in  full  connection  are  declared  to  be  members  by  right.  Were 
the  Bishops  in  full  connection  or  not?  If  yea,  then  they  were  members.  It  is  not 
meant  to  say  the  President  of  a  General  Conference  is  a  member  in  the  sense  in  which 
Annual  Conference  Delegates  are,  but  that  the  constitution  makes  him  a  part  of  the 
body  in  virtue  of  his  right  of  general  oversight,  which  extends  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence as  well  as  other  departments  of  the  ecclesiastical  system.  But  other  views  of  the 
subject  bear  upon  the  main  question  in  the  same  way. 

Coke  and  Asbury  declare  a  Bishop  to  be  "the  chief  executor  of  those  regulations 
made  in  the  College  of  Presbyters,"  that  is,  the  General  Conference.  The  whole  bench 
of  Bishops  in  1844,  declare  the  Episcopal  office  to  be  chiefly  executive,  and  the  doctrine  in 
fact,  is  coeval  with  the  American  organization.  That  some  of  the  initiatory  steps  of  exe- 
cutive administration  are  taken  by  the  General  Conference,  and  that  in  this  way  it  may 
be  said  to  possess  executive  power  and  perform  executive  acts  is  admitted,  but  that  the 
General  Conference  possesses,  by  vested  right,  the  general  executive  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment as  lately  assumed  in  its  behalf,  we  explicitly  deny,  and  regard  the  claim  as  an 
arrogalion  of  power  as  absurd  as  it  is  alarming,  and  calling  for  resistance  on  the  basis 
of  the  constitution.  The  further  claim  to  all  power,  legislative,  judicial,  and  execu- 
tive, not  expressly  denied  them  in  the  six  restrictive  articles,  is  so  replete  with  usurp- 
ing innovation,  that  we  cannot  refrain  from  asking  the  Church,  even  at  the  North,  to 
look  it  more  fully  in  the  face,  before  they  commit  themselves  to  its  final  approval.  Act- 
ing upon  the  ground  of  this  claim,  the  reforming  Majority  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, might  have  annihilated  the  entire  itinerant  system— all  the  Annual  and  Quarterly 
Conferences,  together  with  all  our  missions,  colleges,  schools,  benevolent  associations, 
&c.  If  the  Church  is  prepared  to  submit  to  such  claims,  it  is  time  she  were  preparing 
for  eventful  changes,  both  of  polity  and  administration.  Is  theve  any  connection  be- 


142 

tween  the  late  putting  forth  of  these  claims,  and  the  official  declaration  made  to  tha 
General  Conference  by  Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  Andrew,  Waugh,  and  Morris,  that  in 
several  of  the  Northern  Conferences  little  remains  of  the  itinerant  system  except  the 
name?  Is  there  evidence  of  an  intention  to  consolidate  the  power  of  government  in  the 
General  Conference,  and  by  destroying  the  present  checks  and  balances  of  the  system, 
place  it  in  the  power  of  the  Majority  of  that  body  to  control  the  whole  machinery  of 
Church  action7  Was  it  necessary  to  elaborate  these  claims  with  chiselled  exactitude — 
dove-tail  them  into  each  other,  and  reduce  them  to  a  science,  in  order  to  gel  at  Bishop 
Andrew?  We  lay  the  effect  before  the  reader  and  leave  him  to  find  an  adequate  cause. 
From  1792  to  1808,  the  General  Conference  possessed  the  power  of  the  whole  body 
of  ministers  ;  now  it  does  not ;  it  is  a  Church  Council  with  limited  powers  ;  not  "every- 
thing," but  as  Dr.  Coke  says,  "a  check  upon  every  thing."  As  the  claim,  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  creates  the  Bishop,  proves  to  be  a  mere  fiction,  so  the  claim  of  right  to 
do  what  they  please  with  their  own,  must,  as  far  as  Bishops  are  concerned,  go  to  "the 
moles  and  the  bats"  with  it.  Let  the  Majority  have  the  benefit  of  their  own  reasoning 
in  application  to  the  General  Conference.  That  body  was  created  by  the  Episcopacy 
and  Annual  Conferences,  therefore  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences  can  destroy 
it  when  they  please !  The  General  Conference  is  a  constitutional  provision  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  cannot,  by  right,  alter  or  override  the  fundamental  principles  in  virtue  of 
•which  it  governs  or  performs  its  functions.  Holding  power  only  in  virtue  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  acting  beyond,  and  independently  of  its  provisions,  they  act  without 
right,  and  cease  at  once  to  be  the  representatives  of  the  constitution.  Hence,  all  such 
acts  are  null  and  void.  We  have  applied  this  universally  received  principle  of  consti- 
tutional law  to  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, and  also  in  relation  to  a  division  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  and  have 
shown  the  constitutional  right  of  the  South  to  resist,  in  the  one  case,  and  (he  utter  want 
of  it  on  the  part  of  the  North,  in  the  other.  That  the  Annual  Conferences  are  regarded  by 
the  Discipline,  as  original  contracting  or  confederating  parties,  not  only  in  the  creation 
of  the  General  Conference,  but  in  the  constitutional  government  of  the  Church,  is  undenia- 
ble, from  the  language  and  provisions  of  the  6fh  restrictive  article,  distinctly  recognizing 
the  power  of  the  Annual  Conferences  to  change  the  entire  government  of  the  Church, 
even  to  the  doing  away  of  Episcopacy.  To  effect  this,  it  is  only  necessary  that  the 
Conferences  decide  upon  the  change,  and  elect  their  delegates  to  the  ensuing  General 
Conference  in  view  of  it,  and  as  these  are  the  only  organic  bodies  represented  in  the 
General  Conference,  unless  the  delegates  prove  recreant  to  their  trust,  it  is  accomplish- 
ed. The  fact  that  the  General  Conference  elects  Bishops,  by  no  means  furnishes  a  pri- 
ori presumption,  as  has  been  contended,  of  the  dependence  of  Bishops  upon  that  body. 
It  is  a  well  known  and  common  fact  in  the  history  of  governments,  that  one  branch  ap- 
points the  officers  of  another,  essentially  co-ordinate  in  its  character.  The  fact  in  ques- 
tion does  not  authorize  even  a  plausible  inference  in  favor  of  General  Conference  pow- 
er. As  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  originally  organized,  that  is,  by  its  con- 
stitution, Episcopal  powers  never  belonged  to  the  General  Conference,  and  if  they  had, 
the  very  form  of  the  government  proves  they  must  have  been  parted  with  by  an  act  of 
solemn  transfer,  and  invested  in  the  Bishops,  and  of  course  their  resumption  by  the 
General  Conference  is  impossible,  until  the  constitution  is  either  changed  or  destroyed. 
To  meet  this  difficulty,  and  obviate  its  absurdity,  the  still  greater  absurdity  is  maintain- 
ed, that  these  powers  inhere  in  the  Bishops  and  the  Conference  at  the  same  time,  and 
may  be  exercised  by  either,  as  the  Conference  may  elect !  Can  it  be  necessary  to  reply 
to  such  an  argument?  And  if  so,  for  whose  benefit?  Can  any  one  avoid  perceiving, 


;  4 

143 

that  when,  by  election  and  ordination  now,  as  by  ordination  alone,  originally,  Bishops 
becomo  invested  with  Episcopal  powers,  the  right  to  suspend  the  exercise  of  those  pow- 
ers, or  withdraw  them,  cannot  accrue  to  their  original  source,  unless  the  Bishop  shall 
violate  the  well  known  terms  of  the  investment.  This  view  of  the  subject  has  been 
sustained  by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference.  It  is  well  known  that  the  "sus- 
pended resolutions"  of  1820  were  protested  against  by  Bishops  McKendree  and  Soule, 
as  unconstitutional,  on  the  ground,  solely,  that  it  was  taking  from  the  Episcopacy,  by 
simple  resolution  of  the  General  Conference,  right  and  power  invested  there  by  the  con- 
stitution, and  thus  destroying  the  sacredness  of  vested  rights,  beside  impairing  the  in 
tended  force  and  vigor  of  the  Episcopacy,  as  the  executive  branch  of  the  government. 
The  protest  was  sustained  by  the  General  Conferences  of  1824  and  1828,  as  based  up- 
on good  and  sufficient  reasons. 

The  Episcopal  office  is  a  delegation  of  right  and  power,  in  the  shape  of  a  high  moral 
trust,  and  unless  the  trust  is  abused  by  moral  or  official  delinquency,  the  claim  of  the 
Bishop  to  the  continued  possession  of  the  right  and  power  invested  in  him,  cannot  be 
impaired  except  by  a  constitutional  change  of  government.  Whatever  may  be  the  vaga- 
ries anil  shifts  of  party  expediency,  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  a  Bishop  is  not  removable,  or  liable  to  legal  disability  of  any  kind,  ex- 
cept, as  upon  fair  trial,  he  is  found  to  be  punishable.  All  the  power  vital  to  the  func- 
tions of  Episcopacy,  is  constitutional,  and  no  portion  of  it  merely  ministerial.  Those 
who  maintain  that  a  Bishop  is  absolutely  subject  to  the  General  Conference,  must,  of 
necessity,  maintain  that  the  Conference  possesses  absolute  power  with  regard  to  the 
Episcopacy,  but  that  this  is  not  so,  we  prove  in  a  hundred  different  forms.  The  fiction 
by  which  it  is  attempted  to  discriminate  between  the  office  and  the  officer,  may  answer 
for  declamation,  but  :iot  in  argument.  If  all  Bishops  are  absolutely  subject  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  the  Episcopal  office  is  absolutely  under  its  control.  The  office  follows 
the  officer.  They  necessarily  co-exist.  The  one  must  be  predicated  of  the  other.  The 
relations,  rights,  and  duties  of  the  officer  constitute  the  office,  and  the  attempted  dis- 
tinction utterly  fails,  as  what  is  now  claimed  in  relation  to  the  incumbent,  destroys  the 
office. 

Nothing  essential  to  the  Episcopacy  was  ever  granted  it  by  the  General  Conference, 
and  therefore,  by  the  showing  of  the  Majority,  no  material  power  of  office  can  be  ta- 
ken from  Bishops,  except  for  causes  invalidating  the  reasons  of  their  election  and  con- 
secration. Although  properly  amenable  to  the  General  Conference  for  both  moral  and 
official  conduct,  they  are,  nevertheless,  essentially  independent,  for  living  as  Christian 
ministers,  and  performing  their  duty  according  to  law,  the  General  Conference  has  no 
right  to  disturb  them,  any  more  than  they  have  right  to  disturb  the  General  Conference 
in  the  performance  of  its  constitutional  functions  ;  the  Annual  Conferences,  meanwhile, 
being  essentially  independent  of  both,  in  their  appropriate  sphere  of  action.  We  have 
seen  the  Episcopal  office  declared  to  be  a  trust  from  God,  committed  to  the  Bishop  by 
the  hands  of  the  Church  ;  and  yet  the  Majority  claim  the  right  to  annul  the  grant  with- 
out any  alledged  unfaithfulness  to  God  or  the  Church,  which  can  be  presumed  to  de- 
stroy the  reason  of  the  grant.  The  office  is  not  a  gift,  but  a  trust  proper,  and  the  only 
responsibility  of  the  Bishop  connects  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  trust,  and  the  difference 
of  opinion,  Nortli  and  South,  is,  we  contend  the  Bishop  is  responsible,  according  to  law, 
they,  that  he  is  indefinitely  amenable,  at  the  discretien  of  a  mere  Majority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Law  is  the  standard  of  judgment  for  which  the  South  contends.  The 
North,  so  far  as  they  have  made  themselves  intelligible,  substitute  opinion  and  passion. 
Iti  the  Protest,  and  everywhere  else,  we  have  rigidly  maintained  Episcopal  responsibil- 


144 


ity  to  all  the  intents  and  purposes  of  law,  and  those  who  misrepresent  us  ia  this  res- 
pect, will  find  our  High  Churcliism  in  the  law,  and  old  as  Methodism  withal. 

The  General  Conference  is  supreme  in  nothing  essential  to  Methodism.  The  articles 
of  religion  and  standards  of  belief,  the  general  rules,  the  Episcopacy,  its  plan  of  super- 
intendency,  the  right  of  trial  and  appeal  of  all  ministers  and  members,  pre-existed,  are 
of  constitutional  force,  and  beyond  the  power  of  the  General  Conference.  A  limitation 
of  its  power  is  seen,  as  before,  in  the  instance  of  the  Episcopal  office,  which  it  did  not 
create,  and  cannot  fill.  Dr.  Fisk  was  a  Bishop,  so  far  as  the  General  Conference  could 
make  him  one,  but  still  was  not  a  Bishop  in  any  allowable  sense  whatever.  The  "con- 
sent and  imposition  of  hands  of  a  Bishop,"  that  is,  the  Episcopal  consecration  of  the 
constitution,  was  necessary  to  make  him  one. 

An  attempt  to  divest  of  power  and  right,  without  alledged  infringement  of  the  terms 
of  the  primary  investment,  must  be  regarded  as  unjust  and  tyrannous  in  all  cases  where 
the  investment  is  constitutional,  and  during  good  behavior,  and  not  merely  ministerial 
and  tempory,  where  it  results  from  the  form,  and  not  any  mere  act  of  the  government. 
The  power  to  divest  has  been  urged  with  great  confidence,  on  the  ground  that  the  Bish- 
op is  responsible  to  the  Conference.  The  responsibility  is  admitted,  but  the  conclusion 
does  not  follow,  beyond  the  extent  of  the  judicial  rights  of  the  Conference  in  the  case. 
Coke  and  Asbury  state,  explicitly,  what  all  know  from  the  Discipline,  that  Presiding 
Elders  are  responsible  to  the  Annual  Conferences ;  but  have  the  Annual  Conferences 
the  power  of  removal,  in  consequence?  All  know  they  have  not.  Other  views  of  the 
subject,  which  follow,  will  further  expose  this  legal  fallacy,  as  opposed  to  all  just 
views  of  the  subject  to  which  it  is  applied. 

When  it  is  avowed  that  the  Church  is,  by  organic  structure  and  arrangement,  "un- 
der the  direction  of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordina- 
tion," ere  we  to  suppose  that  it  is  competent  for  the  Elders  and  Deacons  to  supercede 
the  Bishops,  by  stripping  them  of  the  functions  of  control,  and  so  take  the  entire  direc- 
tion upon  themselves?  When  the  General  Conference  of  1838  distinctly  stated  that 
Bishop  Roberts  was  "not  able  to  do  effective  service,"  and  yet  expressly  recognized  him 
as  "joint  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  was  it  in  view  of  office 
or  labor  that  the  joint  superintendency  accrued?  When  the  General  Conference,  in 
1820,  released  Bishop  McKendree  from  the  responsibility  of  performing  the  duties  of 
General  Superintendent,  did  he  cease  to  be  Suchf 

The  indefinite  grant  of  power  to  the  General  Conference  to  expel  a  Bishop  for  "im- 
proper conduct,"  will  require  a  moment's  notice,  as  important  conclusions  have  been 
deduced  from  an  obviously  false  construction  of  the  language,  by  those  who  have  at 
least  had  the  means  of  better  information.  Our  theorists,  bent  upon  reforming  the 
Episcopal  creed  of  the  Church,  insist  that  by  "improper  conduct,"  it  is  not  meant  to  in- 
clude actions  or  conduct  involving  moral  wrong,  or  in  any  way  sinful  in  their  nature 
and  tendency,  but  mere  faults  of  character  or  conduct,  such  as  imprudence,  practical 
indiscretion,  &.C.,  not  implying  any  offence  against  the  laws  of  Christ  or  the  Church. 
For  such  conduct  merely,  it  is  stiffly  maintained  a  Bishop  may  be  expelled  the  Church 
of  God,  or  at  least  ejected  from  his  office.  We  reject  the  position  entirely,  as  nut  true 
in  whole  or  in  part ;  and  we  insist  it  is  as  untenable,  in  all  sound  reasoning,  as  it  is 
untrue  in  the  theory  of  the  law  in  the  case.  And,  1st,  The  position  dishonors  the 
word  of  God.  The  idea  that  a  Christian  Bishop  may  be  expelled  the  Church  of  Christ, 
or  degraded  from  office  for  conduct  not  involving  moral  wrong — not  in  any  sense  or  de- 
gree sinful,  is  in  direct  and  shameful  conflict  with  the  plainest  lessons  and  truths  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  not  only  a  gross,  but  aaanexcusable  offence  against  the  language  and  ge- 


115 

niiis,  the  whole  analogy  of  Christian  doctrine  and  ethic?,  as  taught  in  the  scriptures. 
2d.  It  is  a  position  so  strange  and  outre,  so  alien  from  all  our  conceptions  of  justice 
and  right,  that  it  can  neve;-  have  the  suffrage  of  the  good  sense  and  sympathies,  much 
less  the  high  moral  convictions  of  our  common  nature.  The  very  supposition  bears 
upon  its  face,  evidence  of  unkindness  and  cruelty.  It  exiles  a  man  merely  because  ho 
is  a  Bishop,  without  the  pale  of  those  charities,  whose  extension  to  all  is  essential  to 
Christian  character.  It  exhibits  the  government  of  the  Church  as  altogether  more  ex- 
acting than  the  laws  and  government  of  God,  and  must  in  the  same  proportion,  place 
its  interests  and  reputation  in  jeopardy.  3d.  The  rule  with  regard  to  "improper  con- 
duct," was  adopted  in  1784,  when  the  Church  was  organized,  and  no  other  existed  from 
that  period  until  1792,  and  if  the  construction  in  question  be  correct,  during  this 
whole  term  no  law  of  the  Church  authorized  the  expulsion  of  a  Bishop  for  crime,  al- 
though he  might  be  expelled  for  the  common,  if  not  unavoidable  errors  of  humanity. 
The  first  rule  was  evidently  intended  as  a  general  law  for  the  trial  of  Bishops  for  "im« 
proper  conduct"  of  any  kind,  from  the  lowest  grade  requiring  notice,  to  the  highest  spe- 
cies of  crime.  Hence  says  Lee,  in  1792,  "we  introduced  a  new  rule  for  the  trial  of 
Bishops,"  obviously  regarding  the  rule  of  1784  as  a  law  for  the  trial  of  an  accused 
Bishop.  We  consider  it  a  well  settled  construction,  that  the  phrase  "improper  con- 
duct" was  used  in  the  legislation  of  the  Church,  to  cover  all  kinds  of  conduct  incon- 
sistent with  Christian  or  ministerial  character,  whether  applied  to  Bishops  or  others. 
Dr.  Emory  evidently  understood  the  subject  in  this  light.  He  says  of  Bishops,  "this 
superiority  is  accorded  to  them  only  so  long  as  they  are  not  judged  guilty  of  any  im- 
proper conduct  requiring  their  degradation,"  plainly  assuming  that  the  phrase  denotes 
any  immoral  or  other  course  of  conduct  requiring  suspension  from  office,  or  expulsion 
from  the  Church.  Improper  conduct,  in  the  law  of  trial  under  notice,  is  used  to  denote 
any  kind  of  conduct  in  a  Bishop,  so  inconsistent  with  the  purposes  of  his  appointment, 
and  the  obligations  of  his  office,  as  to  require  the  official  notice  of  the  Church.  Dr. 
Bangs  gives  it  as  the  sense  and  substance  of  the  very  law  or  rule  in  question,  "if  ac- 
cused, the  General  Conference  has  power  to  try,  censure,  acquit,  or  condemn  a  Bishop." 
The  power  can  only  be  exercised  judicially,  by  due  means  of  "accusation  and  trial." 

The  phrase,  "improper  tempers,  words,  or  actions,"  found  elsewhere  in  the  Discip- 
line, has  a  perfect  equivalence  of  meaning,  and  yet  we  know  its  import  is  so  grave 
and  strong  as  to  be  followed  by  expulsion  from  the  Church.  By  turning  to  the  old 
Minutes,  Lee's  History,  and  contemporary  records  and  journals,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  terms  disowned,  dismissed,  expelled,  and  laid  aside,  are  used  indifferently  and 
interchangeably  to  denote  the  same  thing,  severance  from  the  Church.  This  will  not 
be  disputed,  and  the  use  of  these  terms  will  help  us  to  an  understanding  of  the  law 
we  are  now  examining.  Dr.  Bangs  mentions  the  expulsion  of  several  preachers  in 
1788,  "for  improper  conduct."  In  1780  Leroy  Cole  was  expelled  for  alledged  "improp- 
er conduct."  (This  expulsion  was  unjust,  as  the  Conference  admitted  at  its  next  meet- 
ing, when  he  was  restored.)  The  Minutes  of  1793,  ask  who  have  been  disowned 
(expelled)  for  "improper  conduct?"  and  we  are  informed  James  Bell  was.  In  1794 
Simon  Carlisle,  David  Richardson,  James  Johnston,  and  David  Valleau,  were  all  ex- 
pelled for  "improper  conduct."  A  short  time  subsequent  to  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  Enoch  Mattson,  Adam  Cloud,  and  Thomas  Chew,  were  expelled  for  "improper 
conduct."  In  1792  Lee  informs  us,  a  rule  was  introduced  "for  the  trying  of  Traveling 
Preachers  who  might  be  accused  of  being  guilty  of 'improper  conduct, '"and  the  definition 
of  what  is  meant  by  "improper  conduct,"  is  "being  guilty  of  some  crime  expressly  for- 
bidden in  the  word  of  God,  as  en  unchristian  practice,  sufficient  to  exclude  a  person 
19 


146 

from  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  glory."  The  legal  use  ot'the  phrase  has.  beyond  doubt, 
covered  all  the  forms  of  moral  delinquency,  since  its  first  introduction  into  the  Dis- 
cipline. The  rule  for  trying  a  Bishop  in  the  intervals  of  General  Conference,  adopted 
eight  years  after  the  first,  was  obviously  intended  to  supplement  and  explain  the  first 
rule,  as  both  defective  and  indefinite.  Coke  and  Asbury  explain  the  phrase  in 
the  same  way  ;  they  say  the  various  means  of  trial  to  which  all  of  vsnre  subject,  which 
applied  to  Bishops,  is  without  truth  or  meaning,  unless  our  construction  be  correct,  as 
but  one  mode  of  trial  would  be  left  them,  upon  the  construction  we  oppose.  They  also 
clearly  assume,  that  any  charge  of  "improper  conduct"  against  a  Bishop,  to  be  follow- 
ed by  censure  or  disability  of  any  kind,  can  only  be  acted  upon  in  due  "form  of  trial." 
As  the  explanatory  synonym  of  the  phrase  -'improper  conduct,"  they  say  "tyrannical 
or  immoral  conduct."  as  authorizing  "severe  censure"  and  a  "change  of  men."  "They 
are  conscious  the  Conference  would  neither  degrade  nor  censure  them,  unless  they 
(Bishops)  deserved  it."  "They  are  subject  to  be  tried,"  "No  Bishops  on  earth  are 
subject  to  so  strict  a  trial."  "They  are  as  responsible  as  any  of  the  Preachers."  The 
idea  of  judicial  trial,  pervades  the  whole  comment.  Finally,  they  speak  of  Bishops  as 
liable  to  be  "expelled  the  Church"  (not  their  office  merely)  on  the  charge  of  "improper 
conduct."  From  all  which,  it  must  result  inevitably,  not  only  that  the  construction 
put  upon  the  phrase  by  the  Majority,  is  an  utter  mis-statement  of  the  law,  and  perverts 
it  entirely  from  its  orignal  meaning  and  intention;  but  that  all  the  ingenuity  and  arti- 
fice expended  upon  the  labored  attempt  to  show  that  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  may  be  laid  aside,  divested  of  oSice,  or  even  expelled  the  Church,  for  con- 
duct not  involving  moral  delinquency  of  any  kind,  must  fall  to  the  ground,  without 
claim  to  any  thing  like  reason  or  credibility.  If  correct  in  our  premises  and  conclu- 
sions, the  former  of  which  will  be  found  in  the  ]aw  and  history  of  the  Church,  and  the 
latter  we  think  legitimate  and  necessary,  it  will  be  perceived  at  once,  that  the  principal 
warrant  of  the  Majority  in  the  prosecution  of  Bishop  Andrew,  is  utterly  destroyed, 
They  had  no  such  right,  discretion  or  warrant,  as  contended  for,  and  proceeding 
against  him  as  they  did,  not  only  invaded  law  and  right  in  his  case,  but  adopted  a  prin- 
ciple of  action  with  regard  to  others,  placing  in  manifest  jeopardy,  the  dignity  and  val- 
ue of  the  Episcopal  office. 

It  may  be  proper  to  recur  to  the  question  of  amenability.  About  the  fact  that  a 
Bishop  is  amenable  to  the  General  Conference  for  his  moral  and  official  conduct,  there 
is  no  dispute.  We  contend,  however,  that  a  Bishop  is  not  amenable  so  as  to  be  in  the 
hands  or  power  of  the  General  Conference,  affecting  his  office  or  the  exercise  of  its 
functions,  as  specified  and  secured  in  the  constitution,  except  for  conduct  coming  under 
the  judicial  cognizance  of  that  body,  by  license  of  law  pursuant  to  the  constitution. 
To  this  extent  he  is  strictly  amenable,  and  should  always  be  held  so.  The  amenability 
we  oppose,  is  a  claim  of  right  by  the  General  Conference,  to  hold  a  Bishop  responsible 
to  the  judgment  or  opinions  of  that  body  without  reference  to  law,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the 
supreme  council  of  the  Church,  and  its  will  must  be  law  at  any  time.  In  support  of  this 
theory,  great  reliance  is  placed  upon  a  recent  statement  of  the  Bishops,  to  the  effect, 
that  the  authority  of  the  whole  executive  administration  proceeds  from  the  General 
Conference.  If  this  be  conceded,  it  does  not  conflict  with  our  reasoning.  Still  it  is 
quite  certain  the  Bishops  did  not  mean  what  it  is  attempted  to  make  them  mean.  They 
knew  that  the  original  investment  of  power  in  the  executive  department,  say  Episco- 
pacy, was  not  by  the  General  Conference  or  body  of  Preachers;  they  had  no  such  power 
to  part  with,  but  inasmuch  as  the  constitution  invested  in  the  General  Conference  the 
right  to  select  the  incumbents  of  the  Episcopal  office,  with  the  additional  right  to  regu- 


147 

late  the  Episcopal  charge,  provided  they  disturbed  nothing  essential  to  Episcopacy  or  its 
plan  of  superintendency,  as  a  pre-ordinate  power  and  department  of  the  government, 
it  is  entirely  proper  for  the  Bishops  or  any  body  else,  to  speak  of  the  authority  of  the 
executive  administration  as  derived  from  the  General  Conference.  Limited  and  under- 
stood as  above,  it  is  true,  and  doubtless  best  that  it  should  be  so.  We  would  not  have 
it  otherwise.  Meanwhile,  the  vested  right  of  the  chief  executive  officers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, are  protected  by  the  constitution,  which  merely  makes  the  General  Conference 
the  organ  of  investment  without  right  to  disturb  or  recall,  except  for  improper  conduct 
manifestly  defeating  the  ends  of  the  investment,  and  then  only  in  virtue  of  the  judicial 
trust  committed  to  the  Conference  by  the  constitution.  Hence  in  the  same  connection 
the  Bishops  speak  of  their  responsibility  to  the  Conferenceas  a  "judicatory"  and  "con- 
stitutional tribunal."  When  they  speak  of  their  "superintending  agency,"  they  must 
mean  under  the  constitution  and  not  the  General  Conference,  in  any  conclusive  sense. 
They  knew  the  legal  subjection  of  the  General  Conference  to  the  constitution,  to  be  the 
same  as  theirs,  and  therefore,  that  any  claim  of  control  except  such  as  we  have  speci- 
fied, could  not  be  admitted  by  them,  without  the  betrayal  of  a  constitutional  trust.  Hence 
again,  they  speak  of  "all  things  being  done  in  every  official  department  of  the  Church, 
in  strict  conformity  to  the  constitution  and  the  Discipline." 

That  the  Bishops  did  not  mean  a  subjection  to  the  General  Conference,  the  test  of 
which  shall  be  the  mere  will  of  that  body,  apart  from  the  constitution  and  laws,  stands 
out  in  intelligible  relief,  in  the  same  connection  from  which  we  have  quoted.  They  say, 
"the  primary  objects  of  their  official  department  in  the  Church,  were  to  preserve,  in  the 
most  effectual  manner,  an  Itinerant  ministry — to  maintiana  uniformity  in  the  government 
and  discipline,  in  every  department."  The  kind  of  responsibility  they  readily  admit,  is 
that  for  which  we  contend — "responsible  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  office," 
is  their  language;  "the  office,"  they  add,  "you  have  committed  to  us."  While  the 
Bishops  knew  themselves  responsible  to  the  General  Conference  for  their  conduct,  both 
as  individuals  and  officers,  they  knew  equally  well  that  they  were  not  dependent  for 
right  and  prerogative,  as  they  derived  these  from  the  constitution,  independently  of  the 
General  Conference.  It  is  certainly  not  very  complimentary  to  the  intelligence  of  the 
electors,  to  suppose  they  would  make  men  Bishops  so  grossly  ignorant  of  the  constitu- 
tion as  to  suppose  that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  Episcopacy  depend  upon  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Sandford,  speaking  of  Episcopal  responsibility  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, says,  "a  Bishop  is  responsible  for  his  Christian,  moral,  and  official  conduct." 
Dr.  Bangs  says,  "he  is  amenable  to  that  body  for  his  moral  and  official  conduct."  Dr. 
Elliott  says,  "from  them"  (we  have  shown  in  what  sense  only,)  "he  derives  his  powers, 
and  to  them  is  accountable  for  the  exercise  of  them.  Also,  "He  is  accountable  for  the 
proper  discharge  of  his  duties"  Dr.  Bangs  assumes  that  "those  who  invest  another  with 
ecclesiastical  orders,  on  condition  that  he  possesses  certain  qualifications  and  continues 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office,  have  a  power  and  a  right  to  divest  him  of  it  when- 
ever he  fails  to  fulfil  these  conditions.''''  Bishop  McKendree  says,  "I  consider  myself 
justly  accountable,  not  for  the  system  of  government,  but  for  my  administration,  ready 
to  answer  for  past  conduct.'"  Dr.  Elliott,  in  vindicating  a  Bishop  against  the  absurd 
idea  of  any  except  legal  responsibility  to  the  General  Conference,  declares,  "if  they 
had  no  Discipline  to  bear  on  his  case,  then  he  could  not  break  their  laws,  as  they  did  not 
exist."  Sandford  accounts  for  the  Bishops'  amenability  to  the  General  Conference  by 
remarking,  "it  possesses  judiciary  powers  respecting  the  Bishops."  Bishop  McKen- 
dree, reasoning  expressly  upon  the  responsibility  of  "Bishops,  Elders,  &c."  affirms, 
"the  suspending  power  is  clearly  restricted  to  such  crimes  as  are  expressly  forbidden 


145 

in  the  word  of  God."  The  Bishops  have  recently  said  of  themselves,  that  "they  are 
amenable  to  the  General  Conference  not  only  for  their  moral  conduct  and  the  doctrines 
they  teach,  but  also  for  the  faithful  administration  of  the  government  of  the  Church, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline."  These  and  innumerable  other  declara- 
tions to  the  same  effect,  constituting  the  staple  opinions  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of 
Episcopal  amenability  to  the  General  Conference,  show,  with  a  conclusiveness  which 
cannot  be  affected  by  argument  or  sophistry,  that  the  new  theory  of  the  Northern  school, 
is  in  all  its  essential  parts  and  tendencies,  subversive  of  the  old,  and  directly  at  war 
with  ihe  constitution  of  the  Church.  No  man  can  read  the  arguments  and  avowals  of 
those  to  whom  the  new  theory  is  justly  patented,  without  perceiving  that  there  exists, 
and  always  must,  the  most  invincible  repugnance  between  the  commonly  received  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  and  the  innovations  it  is  so  boldly  attempted  to  substitute  in  their 
place.  We  say  substituted  in  their  place,  for  the  two  theories  cannot  co-exist  in 
practice. 

Coke  and  Asbury  remark,  "if  ever  through  improper  conduct  the  General  Conference 
looses  confidence,  in  any  considerable  degree,  (in  the  Bishops,)  they  will  upon  evidence, 
&c."  And  again,  "if  ever  the  Episcopacy  evidently  betrays  a  spirit  of  tyranny  or  par- 
tiality, and  this  can  be  proved  before  the  General  Conference,  &c."  Showing  that  both 
of  the  last  arguments  submitted,  are  fully  sustained  by  the  Bishops.  They  understood 
improper  conduct  to  mean  misconduct  of  any  kind,  such  as  "tyranny,  partiality,  im- 
moral conduct,"  and  they  further  and  distinctly  let  it  be  known,  that  the  "evidence"  and 
"proof"  of  trial  "before  the  General  Conference,"  is  the  only  mode  of  testing  the  is- 
sue. We  have  already  noticed  for  another  purpose,  unequivocal  evidence  that  the  view 
we  take  of  this  subject  is  correct.  "The  letters  of  Episcopal  ordination"  held  by  the 
Bishops  say,  "set  apart,  consecrated,  and  ordained,  to  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop, 
so  li>n%  as  his  spirit,  practice,  and  doctrine  are  such  as  become  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  be  shall  submit  to  and  maintain  the  Discipline  and  order'1''  of  the  Church. 
A  claim  of  right  then  to  disturb,  remove,  or  degrade,  while  the  Bishop  submits  to  law 
and  order,  and  maintains  them  in  administration,  involves  the  claimants  in  the  charge 
of  falsehood  as  well  as  faithlesness,  for  in  the  "letters"  above,  they  are  sacredly  pledg- 
ed to  the  contrary  of  what  they  claim.  But  these  "self  imposed"  restrictions,  remova- 
ble at  will,  are  supposed  fully  to  secure  the  General  Conference  against  all  legal  em- 
barrassment. The  expedient  is,  so  says  the  argument  of  Bishop  Hamline  and  others, 
if  a  law  be  needed  the  General  Conference  can,  in  a  moment,  make  it  for  the  occasion. 
And  the  result  is,  the  restrictions  restrict  no  body — nothing.  The  Conference  has  un- 
limited license— there  is  no  restriction  at  all  except  as  the  resolves  and  acts  of  the  Con- 
ference at  different  times,  become  the  antipodes  of  each  other,  and  limit  by  obstruction. 
Let  this  claim  be  applied  to  the  assumed  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  supremacy 
of  the  General  Conference,  and  in  theory  we  have  as  veritable  a  tyranny  as  ever  existed 
on  earth,  and  the  only  safety  of  the  Church  will  be  in  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  the 
men  composing  the  body.  They  may  not  do  wrong,  may  not  oppress,  but  that  they 
have,  so  far  as  this  theory  of  government  is  concerned,  as  good  a  right  to  do  wrong  as 
to  act  otherwise,  no  one  can  doubt.  Dr.  Bangs  says,  "the  acts  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence are  tried  by  the  restrictive  regulations,  which  define  and  limit  their  powers." 
The  Dr.  certainly  does  not  mean  that  they  are  their  own  triers,  but  that  their  acts  are  to 
be  tested  by  these  rules,  and  the  other  departments  act  in  accordance  with  the  conclu- 
sions at  which  they  arrive  in  the  case.  The  President  presiding  over  the  deliberations 
of  the  body,  by  appointment  of  the  constitution,  is  there  for  the  several  purposes,  as 
has  been  seen,  of  general  oversight — as  the  representative  of  the  Church  at  large  in  its 


149 

various  departments  and  interests — to  preside  and  moderate  in  the  sittings  cf  the  body, 
and  always  respecting  and  asserting  its  rights,  nevertheless  superintend  there  as 
elsewhere.  He  is  not  there  for  the  direct  but  auxiliary  purposes  of  legislation  and  ju- 
dicial procedure.  Hence,  in  judging  of  the  acts  of  the  body,  his  position  is  materially 
different  from  that  of  the  elected— the  local  and  sectional  delegates  of  the  body,  and  the 
reasoning  which  would  apply  to  them,  cannot  apply  to  the  constitutional  head  of  the 
assembly.  He  is  in  the  body,  with  constitutional  right,  to  further  the  objects  of  its 
appointment. 

We  have  shown,  in  various  ways,  that  the  imposing  pretence  that,  the  Church  met 
in  1808,  to  frame  a  constitution,  can  only  mean,  so  far  as  the  truth  of  history  is  con- 
cerned, that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences,  as  the  prop- 
er contracting  departments  and  parties,  not  to  allow  the  project  of  a  Delegated  General 
Conference  to  go  into  effect  without  adding  to  the  constitution,  proper  restrictions  and 
limitations,  with  regard  to  the  rights  and  powers  they  would  be  likely  to  assume. 
It  was  the  specific  object  of  that  Conventional  Conference  to  prevent  the  preferment  of 
any  such  claim  in  behalf  of  the  General  Conference,  as  that  against  which  we  are  now 
protesting.  The  imposition  of  these  restrictions  was  eminently  the  condition  upon 
which  a  Delegated  General  Conference  was  allowed  to  exist  at  all,  and  yet  this  body, 
thus  limited  and  restricted,  claims  to  determine  whether  they  will  abide  constitutional 
restraint,  as  imposed  by  others,  or  not  rather  create  constitutional  prerogative  as  they 
may  stand  in  need  of  it.  And  to  render  this  sliding  scale  of  constitution  and  law  eve- 
ry way  facile  and  easy  of  management,  it  is  assumed  that  the  only  restrictions  upon 
the  General  Conference  are  "self-imposed,"  and  may,  of  course,  at  any  time  be  over- 
ruled by  prerogative  !  These  are  the  miserable  inventions,  such  the  sans  culotte  radi- 
calism, for  protesting  against  ichich  we  are  denounced  as  reckless  "divisionists,"  en- 
gaged in  a  crusade  against  the  unity  of  the  Church,  which  they  themselves  had  destroy- 
ed, while  we  were  praying  them  to  withhold  their  hands!  We  appeal  to  facts.  Let 
the  developments  of  this  Review,  and  others  equally  important,  be  calmly  and  careful- 
ly weighed,  and  we  are  content  to  abide  the  issue.  In  every  aspect  in  which  we  are 
able  to  view  this  exhorbitant  claim  of  General  Conference  power,  we  regard  it  as  ab- 
surd and  dangerous.  There  certainly  must  be  something  in  the  constitutional  struc- 
ture of  the  government  to  check  and  counterbalance  such  a  state  of  things.  And,  in 
part,  as  we  have  shown,  we  believe  beyond  cavil,  such  check  and  resislance  must  be 
found  in  the  Chief  Executive  Officers  of  the  Church.  We  do  not  mean  power  to  con- 
trol the  General  Conference,  except  so  far  as  to  check  and  moderate,  and  keep  it  within 
the  limits  of  the  constitution.  When  it  is  obvious,  for  example,  that  an  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  subversive  of  constitutional  right,  it  is  the  plain  and  undeniable  du- 
ty of  the  Bishops,  as  constitutional  officers  of  the  whole  Church,  to  resist  the  wrong  in 
a  proper  manner,  and  not  give  sanction  and  currency  to  a  grave  constitutional  abuse,  by 
transforming  a  legislative  or  judicial  error  into  an  executive  general  evil.  In  this 
way  the  subject  would  be  brought,  in  due  form,  before  all  the  departments  of  the 
Church,  equally  independent,  under  the  constitution,  and  the  proper  correction  of  the 
evil  would,  in  due  time,  be  the  probable  result.  If  Bishops  are  allowed  to  have  judg- 
ment and  conscience  in  the  premises,  how  can  they  act  otherwise  than  as  we  suggest] 
When  the  General  Conference,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Episcopacy,  have  not  only  fail- 
ed to  represent  the  constituent  bodies  electing  them,  buc  so  acted  as  to  inflict  deep  and 
permanent  injury  upon  them,  are  not  the  Bishops,  as  having  the  general  oversight  of 
all,  allowed  to  dissent,  and  in  a  proper  and  respectful  manner  appeal  the  case  for  rem- 
edy to  other  departments  of  the  Church]  It  is  not  intended  to  claim  that  any  express 


,50 

grant  gives  full  and  perfect  right  to  this  effect.  It  is  not  alluded  to  as  matter  of  right, 
except  upon  high  moral  grounds,  connected  with  the  reasons  and  aims  of  government. 
The  power  of  the  suspensive  veto,  at  least,  must  be  found  somewhere  in  every  good  gov- 
ernment, in  eve^y  government,  in  fact,  which  is  not  a  tyranny,  or  liable  to  become  one 
at  any  moment.  If  practicable,  we  prefer  that  the  power  of  check  and  balance  should 
be  found  in  each  department,  with  regard  to  the  rest — any  other;  but  if  this  be  not 
practicable,  owing  to  the  peculiar  form  of  the  government,  or  is  wanting  for  any  other 
reason,  the  right  will,  of  necessity,  often  accrue  in  extreme  cases,  and,  from  the  nat- 
ural operation  of  cause  and  effect,  to  the  Executive  department,  much  more  frequently 
than  the  others.  When  we  say  of  necessity,  we  mean,  it  is  often  necessary  to  accom- 
plish the  objects  of  the  constitution,  and  when  this  is  the  case,  the  right  is  inherent  in 
the  system,  whether  it  exist  as  a  formal  grant  or  not.  It  is  well  known  to  have  been 
the  opinion  of  Bishop  McKendree,  that  without  the  exercise  of  this  power,  as  occasion 
may  demand,  the  executive  branch  of  the  government  of  ihe  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
could  not  maintain  its  effectiveness.  It  will  be  recollected  by  many,  that  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree, upon  a  time,  firmly  and  peremptorily  refused  to  ordain  a  man  elected  to  El- 
der's orders,  by  the  New  York  Conference,  because,  as  he  alledged,  they  had  infringed 
the  constitution  in  his  election,  and,  as  a  constitutional  officer,  he  refused  to  endorse 
the  proceeding.  We  have  seen  he  acted  upon  the  same  principle  in  1820,  with  regard 
to  the  "suspended  resolutions  ;"  and  it  is  known,  that  in  1824  he  had  a  measure  brought 
forward,  the  object  of  which  was,  to  give  to  the  Episcopacy,  subject  to  proper  restric- 
tions, the  right  of  the  negative  we  are  noticing:  not  with  any  view  to  lessen  the  h'nal 
power  of  the  General  Conference,  but  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  Episcopacy  and  An- 
nual Conferences,  and  secure  an  effective  well  balanced  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment. This  view  of  the  subject  is  introduced  merely  by  the  way,  to  bring  before  the 
reader  the  rights  and  powers  of  Episcopacy,  not  on  scriptural  grounds,  but  as  an  ele- 
mentary principle  of  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  vitally  connected  with  its  ef- 
fective administration.  Under  the  belief,  formerly,  that  the  claims  of  Episcopacv,  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  both  as  it  regarded  ordination  and  jurisdiction,  were 
prescriptively  based  upon  divine  scriptural  right,  we  rejected  the  claim  as  destitute  of 
any  thing  like  fair  or  reasonable  warrant.  When  led,  however,  to  examine  the  subject 
in  the  light  of  a  conventional  arrangement,  in  the  original  organization  of  the  Church, 
and  subsequent  adjustment  of  the  different  parts  and  powers  of  the  government,  the 
whole  subject  of  necessity  assumed  a  different  aspect,  and  approval  or  disapproval  turn- 
ed upon  the  subject  matter  of  two  simple  questions  :  1st.  What  are  the  rights  and  pow- 
ers conventionally  secured  to  the  Episcopacy,  and  by  consequence  constitutional,  in  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  And,  2d.  Viewing  the  ecclesiastical 
system  of  the  Church  as  a.  grand  missionary  organization,  are  these  rights  and  powers 
necessary  to  secure  an  effective  administration  of  the  government,  and  the  ends  pro- 
posed by  the  system?  Having  satisfied  myself  with  regard  to  the  first,  and  answered 
the  second  affirmatively,  I  immediately  adopted  the  general  views  I  have  since  enter- 
tained, and  with  which  I  am  involved  in  this  controversy.  Since  the  termination  of 
my  connection  with  the  former  controversy,  seventeen  Annual  Conferences,  whose  ad- 
ministration has  been  approved  by  five  successive  General  Conferences,  (of  all  which  I 
have  been  a  member,)  have  extended  to  me  official  public  approval,  as  worthy  of  their 
confidence  and  that  of  the  Church.  I  have  proofs  in  my  possession,  that  during  the 
whole  period  in  question,  I  have  had  the  friendship  and  confidence  of  the  first  men  of 
the  Church,  East,  West,  North,  and  South,  always  including  a  decided  majority,  if  not 
the  entire  bench  of  Bishops.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  not  to  extend  a  notice  of 


151 

myself,  to  which  I  am  driven  by  gratuitous  insult  and  injury,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say  to  my  recent  mUifiers  through  the  medium  of  the  press,  that  if,  at  whatever  addi- 
tional expense  of  truth  and  decency,  it  will  be  any  gratification  to  their  malignity  to 
proceed  further  with  their  abuse,  humble  as  I  am  in  reputation  and  resource,  I  can  af- 
ford to  let  them. 

If  we  understand  the  claim  of  General  Conference  power,  it  is  that  all  the  power  of 
the  government  is  in  its  hands.  It  is  true  the  restrictions  are  admitted  to  throw  some 
difficulty  in  the  way,  but  it  has  been  seen  that  the  removal  of  the  difficulty  is  conve- 
niently provided  for.  If  we  do  not  misconceive  the  recent  revelations  on  this  subject, 
the  doctrine  is,  that  the  power  of  government  proper  is  in  the  General  Conference,  un- 
divided with,  unmodified  and  unmediatized  by  any  other  department  of  the  system.  It 
would  be  an  easy  task  to  show  that  hundreds  of  postulates  and  assumptions,  and  long 
trains  of  reasoning,  of  Northern  origin,  during  the  last  ten  or  eleven  months  all  tend 
to  this,  and  we  cannot  help  thinking,  it  is  our  deliberate  conviction,  that  a  claim  like 
this,  to  make,  execute,  and  judge,  in  relation  to  all  law,  is  as  preposterous  a  claim  to 
absolutism  in  the  structure  of  government,  as  any  known  in  history.  The  reason  is 
obvious;  there  is  no  mediatizing,  qualifying  power  in  any  other  branch  of  the  govern- 
ment. Now  whether  the  supposed  binding  force  of  the  restrictive  rules  be  admitted 
or  not,  we  have  seen  and  shall  have  occasion  further  to  show,  that  this  claim  of  power 
is  subversive  of  the  only  theory  of  government  we  have,  and  is  likely  soon  to  result 
in  consequences  greatly  injurious,  if  not  fatal  to  its  usual  vigor  of  administration. 
I  have  had  no  communication  with  any  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  on  the  subject,  but  am 
perfectly  satisfied  from  my  knowledge  of  the  men  and  their  general  views,  that  a  ma- 
jority of  them  are  of  the  same  opinion,  and  regard  the  government,  in  this  respect,  as 
in  a  course  of  revolution,  which  may  or  may  not  be  arrested  and  turned  aside  from  the 
primary  objects  had  in  view,  by  the  movers  and  supporters  of  the  project.  It  will  thus 
be  seen,  important  issues  are  involved  beside  the  slavery  question.  The  spirit  of 
change  and  innovation  is  abroad.  Distinct  spheres  of  authority  in  the  Chnrch  are  in 
conflict.  Immense  masses  of  mind  and  feeling  are  antagonizing  in  different  directions. 
The  swell  of  the  earthquake  is  beneath  us.  Under  such  circumstances,  how,  by  what 
organ  or  organs  is  the  Church  to  act,  in  remedy  of  the  evils  already  upon  us?  What 
can  a  General  Conference  do?  A  General  Conference  brought  on  our  misfortunes.  Its 
action  in  regard  to  Andrew  and  Harding,  as  the  pretext  for  more  decisive,  and  as  we 
have  proved,  unconstitutional  and  lawless  movements  against  slavery,  has  destroyed  the 
confidence  of  the  South.  The  North,  under  the  dictation  of  the  Press,  are  rapidly 
placing  themselves  in  direct  hostility  to  the  General  Conference,  on  the  question  of 
separation.  What  then  could  a  General  Conference  do?  Precisely  what  the  Baltimore 
and  Illinois  Conferences  expect  them  to  do,  re-assert  the  lawfulness  and  necessity  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  last  General  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  by  new 
legislation  attempt  to  nullify  its  contract  with  the  South,  as  to  the  division  of  the 
Church.  All  Delegates  would  be  elected  upon  strictly  party  grounds,  and  all  action 
had  in  view  of  party  purposes  ;  I  mean  the  great  objects  of  the  parties  respectively,  on 
the  two  great  questions,  slavery  and  separation.  I  see  no  power  or  likelihood  of  rem- 
edy, but  the  high  moral  certainty  of  increased  evil  by  such  an  arrangement.  The  par- 
ties North  and  South  are  being  so  compactly  formed  and  firmly  pitted  against  each 
other,  thai  it  is  entirely  probable  a  majority  of  the  old  Delegates  would  be  returned, 
and  if  not,  men  of  the  same  sentiments  and  feelings  beyond  doubt,  and  it  requires  but 
little  discernment  to  see  what  the  result  would  be.  I  have  from  the  first,  believed  that 
mere  General  Conference  Agency,  can  avail  nothing  toward  an  adjustment  of  the  diffi- 
culty. 


159 

At  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  my  hopes  of  adjustment  were  connected  with 
the  Annual  Conferences  and  the  Episcopacy,  but  the  Annual  Conferences  are  now  com- 
mitted North  and  South  ;  Bishop  Andrew  is  a  Rebel,  nnd  Bishop  Soule  a  Tyrant  by 
proclamation,  and  the  tone  of  my  hopes  in  these  directions  is  greatly  lowered.  Still, 
I  am  individually  disposed  to  favor  any  plan  of  adjustment  likely  to  give  us  a  stale  of 
things  preferable  to  the  present.  I  will  go  in  for  testing  or  trying  any  measure  of  ad- 
justment or  compromise,  by  means  of  General  Conference,  Annual  Conference,  or 
Episcopal  interposition,  the  only  constitutional  methods  to  which  we  can  appeal,  as  the 
government  precludes  the  Local  ministry  and  people,  beyond  the  right  of  advice  and  re- 
monstrance. I  will  go  in  for  any  or  all  of  these,  provided  it  can  be  done  without  af- 
fecting the  ultimate  obligation  of  the  contract  now  existing  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  Conferences,  on  the  subject  of  separation,  should  the  attempt  fail.  This  is 
certainly  fair  and  just  in  regard  to  both  partie«.  Let  us  be  assured,  then,  upon  the 
basis  of  reliable  stipulations,  that  such  effort  or  efforts  at  compromise,  shall  not,  in  the 
event  of  failure,  affect  in  any  way  the  validity  of  the  General  Conference  plan  of  sepa- 
ration, by  operating  n.  forfeiture  of  right,  or  destruction  or  abatement  of  obligation  in 
relation  to  it,  and  I  will  favor  compromise  in  any  constitutional  form  in  which  it  is  at 
all  likely  to  succeed.  If  the  union  of  the  Church  be  the  object,  no  man  can  object  to 
this.  So  far,  however,  as  an  attempt  at  adjustment  is  intended  to  release  the  North  or 
South  from  the  contract  in  question,  or  may  tend  to  place  in  jeopardy  the  interests  of 
that  contract,  I  am  bound  in  truth  and  honor  to  resist  it.  I  repeat,  however,  that  if 
assured  as  above,  that  in  the  event  of  failure,  the  parlies  North  and  South  are  \o  fall 
back  upon  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  contract  in  question,  I  will  wait  any  length  of 
time,  will  perform  any  labor,  will  do  or  suffer  to  any  extent,  suggested  by  the  reason  or 
fitness  of  things,  to  place  the  Church  where  it  was  on  the  1st  of  May,  1844.  Meanwhile, 
committed  as  I  am  in  company  with  the  Southern  Delegations  in  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, and  every  member  of  the  late  Kentucky  Conference,  (save  one)  to  principles  and 
issues,  plain  and  unambiguous,  found  in  the  Declaration  and  Protest,  the  Southern  Ad- 
dress, the  provisional  arrangements  for  the  Louisville  Convention,  and  the  official  re- 
corded action  of  the  Kenlucky  Conference,  and  from  which  there  is  no  honorable  retreat, 
except  upon  avowal  of  a  change  of  opinion  and  conviction,  upon  the  merits  of  the  u-hole 
subject,  I  cannot  consent  to  any  course  or  measure,  the  effect  of  which  will  be  to  unbind 
the  North  and  disfranchise  ihe  South,  in  view  of  the  obligations  and  rights  of  the  plan  of 
separation.  Any  thing  short  of  this  I  am  ready  to  support.  I  know  many  who  approve 
the  general  course  of  the  South  are  opposed  to  any  conclusive  action  by  the  Convention, 
fearing  it  will  preclude  the  hope  of  future  adjustment.  Such  persons  have  our  respect 
and  sympathy.  But  it  is  worthy  of  grave  enquiry,  whether  such  action,  to  the  extent  of 
formal  organization  to  go  into  effect  contingently,  is  not  the  only  available  method  of 
getting  at  compromise  at  all,  unless  the  South  are  prepared  to  compromise  by  uncon- 
ditional submission,  to  exparte  dictation.  This  last  conclusion  and  course  have,  beyond 
all  doubt,  been  resolved  upon  by  small  portions  of  the  Church  in  Kentucky,  and  else- 
where upon  the  Southern  border.  Whether  the  same  indifference  to  the  principles  and 
interests  involved  in  this,  controversy,  will  mark  any  considerable  portion  of  the 
Church,  remains  to  be  seen.  That  it  is  the  purpose  of  many  to  call  and  clamor  for 
compromise,  who  merely  wish  the  South  to  forfeit  their  rights  under  the  contract  of 
separation  entered  into  by  the  parties  of  the  last  General  Conference,  is  well  known 
and  understood,  and  against  this  intrigue  and  such  treason,  it  is  hoped  the  South  will 
be  sufficiently  guarded.  In  a  word,  we  would  say  to  the  North,  we  are  ready  to  abide 
the  contract  between  us.  in  the  shape  of  a  legislative  enactment  of  the  General  Con- 


4  153 

ference,  or  if  there  be  any  hope  of  compromise,  we  will  agree  to  suspend  the.  fulfilment 
of  its  stipulations,  until  the  trial  is  fairly  made,  and  should  the  attempt  fail,  both  par- 
ties must  abide  the  issue  of  the  General  Conference  plan  of  separation. 

The  claim  of  unlimited  arbitrary  power  by  the  General  Conference,  is  so  offensive 
to  the  genius  of  our  government,  we  know  not  how  to  dismiss  it ;  and  convinced  as  we 
are  that  a  virtual  co-ordination  of  powers  among  the  departments  in  the  general  ad- 
ministration, is  essential  to  the  stability  of  the  government,  we  must  ask  the  attention 
of  the  reader  to  some  additional  arguments.  We  have  shown  that  by  the  whole 
amount  of  the  Episcopal  power  of  the  government,  the  claim  in  question  is  of  necessi- 
ty reduced,  as  thai  is  incontestably  proved  to  be  an  elementary  power  of  the  govern- 
ment, not  .only  before  the  General  Conference  existed,  but  from  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  and  before  it  had  a  Presbyter  in  it.  As  the  General  Conference  did  not  cre- 
ate the  Episcopal  office,  so  it  never  had  the  power  to  fill  it.  It  may  select  a  person  to 
fill,  and  in  case  the  Church  has  no  Bishop,  may  select  Presbyters  to  consecrate  one,  but 
this  right  and  power  of  consecration  are  not  derived  from  the  General  Conference,  but 
from  the  power  of  ordination  in  the  Presbyters,  derived  from  their  own  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation. In  consecrating  a  Bishop,  they  represent  not  the  General  Conference  but  the 
Episcopacy,  the  Bishop  or  order  of  Bishops,  from  whom  they  essentially  derived  the 
right  and  power  they  now  exercise.  Add  to  this,  what  is  in  proof  in  the  general  argu- 
ment, that  the  constitutional  (I  do  not  say  scriptural)  validity  of  the  consecration,  turn- 
ing in  a  very  material  sense  upon  the  prescribed  form  of  consecration,  which  form  is  a 
part  of  the  constitution,  exists,  and  is  of  binding  obligation,  independently  of  the 
General  Conference.  This  ground,  too,  of  General  Conference  claim,  so  exultingly 
relied  upon,  is  further  overthrown  by  the  fact,  that  in  the  consecration  in  question,  the 
General  Conference  has  no  will  or  discretion  of  its  own,  except  in  the  mere  matter  of 
saying  who  is  to  be  selected  for  the  office.  The  constitution  tells  them  that  they  "shall 
elect,"  and  that  the  Elders  "shall  ordain."  It  is  not  the  Conference  but  the  constitu- 
tion which  directs  how  the  Episcopal  power  of  ordination  is  to  be  exercised  by  Presby- 
tars,  in  a  case  of  extreme  necessity.  The  constitution  is  careful  to  show  that  no  Epis- 
copal power  (instead  of  all,  according  to  Bishop  Hamline,)  belongs  to  the  General 
Conference.  When  our  first  Bishops  say  they  are  at  the  "mercy"  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  also  the  "little  Conference"  or  committee  of  nine  for  the  trial  of 
Bishops,  they  do  not  mean,  as  we  have  proved  by  their  own  declarations,  that  no  law 
is  interposed  between  them  and  the  General  Conference,  but  that  the  Conference,  as 
the  tribunal  to  try  them,  could  keep  or  break  the  law  by  a  just  or  unjust  application  of 
it,  and  hence  judicially,  they  were  fully  in  the  power  of  the  Conference.  The  old 
General  Conference,  however,  had  a  vague  claim  to  power  in  this  respect,  which  the 
present  delegated  General  Conference  does  not  possess,  the  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion in  1808,  expressly  restricting  it.  The  General  Conference  has  no  power  over  a 
Bishop  on  the  ground  of  prerogative,  not  a  particle.  The  power  they  have  by  the 
Constitution  we  do  not  object  to  ;  it  is  asserted  in  the  Protest  and  admitted  by  the  whole 
South.  Take  the  sum  of  Episcopal  powers  : — the  right  to  preside  in  the  General  and 
Annual  Conferences ;  to  fix  and  control  the  appointment  of  all  the  Traveling  Preach- 
ers ;  the  exclusive  right  to  ordain  ;  the  power  of  the  general  executive  administration, 
in  the  intervals  of  the  Conferences  especially;  .to  travel  at  large  and  superintend  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  interests  of  the  Church,  throughout  the  entire  connection,  to- 
gether with  the  incidental  rights  and  powers  necessary  to  accomplish  those  objects. 
These  are  all  protected  by  the  constitution,  and  without  its  violation  the  General  Con- 
ference cannot  reach  them,  so  as  to  "change,  alter  or  destroy."  The  only  power  j-e- 
•20 


154 

cognized  by  Bishop  Hedding,  in  the  positions  quoted  from  him  on  this  subject,  which 
can  possibly  affect  our  reasoning,  is  in  the  body  of  Traveling  Elders,  and  cannot  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  constitutional  claims  of  Episcopacy,  except  as  before  shown 
in  this  argument.  The  inferences  from  Bishop  Hedding,  confounds  the  body  of  Travel- 
ing Elders  with  the  General  Conference,  as  a  representative  council  of  the  Church. 
The  constitution  keeps  them  separate.  If  it  be  said  this  council  represents  the  Elders 
in  question,  it  is  sufficient  to  notice  in  reply,  that  it  equally  represents  the  Deacons, 
and  is  no  more  a  delegation  from  the  Elders  than  from  the  Deacons,  so  that  the  one 
cannot  be  substituted  for  the  other  in  argument,  without  a  misstatement  of  facts,  as 
well  as  logical  confusion.  The  inference  of  power  here,  from  the  premises  assumed, 
is  further  invalidated  from  the  fact,  that  the  power  claimed  never  did  belong  to  either 
the  body  of  Traveling  Elders  or  the  General  Conference,  and  could  not  therefore  be 
ceded  or  invested  by  either.  After  the  institution  of  Episcopacy  and  its  full  investment 
with  all  its  present  rights  and  powers,  that  can  in  any  way  be  deemed  essential,  it  was 
conventionally  agreed  to  deposite  the  right  to  elect  Bishops,  and  the  judicial  power  to 
try  them  in  caso  of  delinquency,  with  the  General  Conference,  and  this  is  the  only 
controlling  power  the  General  Conference  has  in  the  premises.  The  facts  of  history 
indeed,  compel  us  to  go  farther  than  this  ;  it  is  not  only  true  that  our  Episcopacy  did 
not  originate  with  the  Eldership,  but  it  is  equally  true,  as  just  seen,  thntit  is  perpetuated 
by  them  to  a  very  limited  extent  only,  for  1st.  The  General  Conference  is  the  Repre- 
sentative Body  of  the  Deacons  as  well  as  Elders,  and  2d.  Its  power  to  perpetuate,  is 
but  auxiliary,  being  confined  to  mere  election,  which  invests  no  right  of  any  kind  in 
the  person  elected,  beyond  saying  he  may  bo  invested  with  right  and  power  by  those 
having  authority  to  make  the  investment,  after  election  by  the  General  Conference. 
Thus  showing,  that  in  every  representative  sense  the  Deacons  divide  the  power  assum- 
ed, with  the  Elders,  and  that  in  both,  and  after  all,  it  is  merely  adjunctive  to  a  more 
substantive  power,  which  the  constitution  has  bounded  as  a  separate  sphere  of  action. 
The  protest  in  assuming  Episcopacy  to  be  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government,  in- 
tended to  convey  the  idea  usually  conveyed  by  such  phrase,  that  it  is  an  independant 
department,  a  separate  sphere  of  executive  power  and  action,  standing  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  the  constitution  that  the  General  Conference  does,  that  is  to  say,  as  the  Epis- 
copacy cannot  constitutionally  invade  in  any  way,  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  Gener- 
al Conference,  so  the  General  Conference  has  no  constitutional  right  to  touch,  in  any 
form,  the  vested  rights  of  the  Episcopacy.  The  co-ordination  we  assume,  is  not  to  be 
judged  of  by  any  estimated  equality  of  powers,  when  the  different  departments  are  sim- 
ply compared  with  each  other,  but  in  so  far  as  they  are  independent  of  each  other,  in 
their  relation  to  the  constitution.  This  is  the  view  of  the  Protest,  and  we  show  it  to 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  very  language  of  the  constitution  avows  it  in  the 
3d  restrictive  article.  When  Bishop  Hedding  speaks  of  the  body  of  Traveling  Elders 
having  power  to  "reduce,  limit,  or  transfer  to  other  hands"  Episcopal  power,  he  is  r.ot 
speaking  of  General  Conference  power,  but  merely  of  the  constitutional  right  of  the 
Annual  Conferences  to  change  the  form  of  government,  and  do  away  Episcopacy  en- 
tirely. This  however,  is  Annual  not  General  Conference  power,  and  beside,  it  no  more 
belongs  to  Elders  than  to  Deacons,  as  we  have  seen.  We  ask  attention  to  I  his  fact 
as  materially  affecting  the  adverse  argument.  All  the  authorities  urged  by  the  Reply 
to  the  Protest,  except  the  misconceived  opinion  of  Bishop  Hedding,  are  inapplical-ic  and 
out  of  place,  because  based  upon  the  old  order  of  things,  before  the  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  were  restricted  in  1808. 


155 

Powers  before  conceded,  not  constitutionally,  or  in  any  accredited  form,  but  apparent- 
ly by  common  general  consent,  were  in  1808,  expressly  denied  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence by  a  constitutional  limitation  of  the  powers  and  rights  of  that  body.  On  this  ac- 
count, much  that  is  said  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  in  their  Notes  on  the  subject  of  General 
Conference  power  over  the  Episcopacy,  is  now  entirely  inadmissible  as  an  exposition  of 
law,  and  it  is  the  sheerest  "sophistry"  to  appeal  to  it  as  such.  The  same  is  true  as  to 
the  opinions  of  Asbury  and  McKendree,  in  1808,  as  quoted  by  the  Rev.  J.  Young,  and 
similar  quotations  made  since  in  the  Northern  papers,  from  Dickins  and  Walters. 
These  concessions  all  date  back  to  an  order  of  things  not  in  existence  since  1808,  arid 
can,  therefore,  have  no  weight  whatever  against  the  force  of  our  general  position  on 
this  subject.  All  the  power  now  found  in  the  General  Cnoference  over  the  Episcopacy, 
amounts  to  nothing  more  than  that  Bishops  are  legally  and  strictly  responsible  for  their 
conduct  as  Ministers  and  Bishops,  and  that  it  is  competent  for  the  Conference  to  lay 
them  aside,  by  judicial  process,  whenever  they  shall  be  found  guilty  of  misconduct 
either  as  men  or  officers,  which  obviously  requires  it.  This  power  the  Conference  ought 
to  have,  and  it  is  enough  to  control  the  Episcopacy  and  prevent  the  introduction  of  any 
serious  evils  into  that  department.  We  are  unyieldingly  opposed  to  any  power  in  the 
Episcopacy  by  which  the  Church  can  be  oppressed,  but  we  are  not  less  opposed  to  any 
such  power  in  the  General  Conference  or  else  where.  To  prevent  such  a  result  is  ou» 
only  object,  and  we  essay  to  do  it  not  by  proposing  any  thing  new,  but  by  showing  that 
what  our  positions  desiderate,  is  already  found  in  the  government.  We  do  not  claim 
as  much  power  for  the  Episcopacy  as  belongs  to  the  General  Conference.  We  are  con- 
tent that  the  Episcopacy  shall  have  incomparably  less  power.  Let  that  body,  as  the 
legislature  and  high  Court  of  Appeals,  be  "supreme"  in  the  parlance  of  the  Church.  All 
this  may  be  so  and  yet  our  reasoning  be  correct.  The  co-ordination  of  the  Protest,  so 
far  from  meaning  the  alledged  "supremacy"  of  the  Reply  does  not  denote  even  an  ap- 
proach to  equality  of  power,  and  in  jurisprudence  is  never  used  for  such  purpose.  It 
means  simply,  existing  independently  of  other  departments  by  the  organic  laws  of  the 
government.  In  the  same  way  geographical  departments  may,  and  often  do,  in  Church 
and  State,  exist  under  the  same  organic  laws,  and  in  this  sense  the  Kentucky  Confer- 
ence applies  the  term  "co-ordinate,"  to  the  proposed  Southern  organization,  and  law  and 
public  opinion  will  sustain  the  construction.  Such  an  organization,  should  it  take  place, 
will  not  be  claimed  to  be  Ike  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  before  stated,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  Northern  division,  but  authorized  by  (hat  Church  to  exist  under  all  its  organic 
laws  without  the  exception  or  change  of  any  one  of  them,  it  will  be  to  all  the  intents 
and  purposes  of  Church  unity,  a  "co-ordinate"  division  of  the  collection  of  Ministers 
and  people  in  the  United  States,  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This 
Church  has  no  corporate  or  other  unity  except  what  arises  from  having  the  same  creed, 
liturgy,  laws,  and  moral  discipline,  and  as  none  of  these  are  affected  by  the  division  pro- 
posed, the  real  unity  of  the  Church  cannot  be  affected  by  the  contemplated  change.  The 
unity  contended  for  by  those  who,  renouncing  the  authority  of  the  Church,  have  thrust 
themselves  into  the  place  of  the  General  Conference,  and  are  attempting  to  dogmatize 
the  Church  into  submission,  is  without  meaning  or  application,  beyond  the  mystic  charm 
of  a  mere  name.  Upon  the  principles  of  reasoning  they  adopt,  there  can  be  no  union 
between  them  and  the  British,  Irish,  and  Canadian  connexions  of  Methodists,  for 
these,  with  the  same  faith,  liturgy,  moral  laws,  and  Discipline,  are  not  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  must,  therefore,  be  aliens,  by  the  logic  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
South.  If  the  union  so  lustily  fought  for,  without  being  defined  or  made  intelligible, 
be  moral  and  spiritual,  the  mere  name  is  nothing,  but  applies  to  all  Christians  of  what- 


..V-4.."1 

over  name.  If  it  be  the  union  of  a  multitude  with  the  same  faith,  the  same  rites  and 
ceremonies,  claiming  to  be  subject  to  the  same  organic  laws  and  moral  regulations  as 
to  life  and  conduct,  then  all  the  denunciations  against  the  South,  as  "seceders  and 
schismatics'*  must  be  traced  to  something  less  sacred  than  truth  and  principle,  for  these 
can  lend  no  support  to  the  injustice  and  outrage  under  which  we  are  suffering,  without 
even  being  charged  with  offense  against  any  law  of  the  Church,  and  for  only  proposing 
to  do,  what  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church  has  declared  all  who  choose  may  do 
"WITHOUT  BLAME!"  Were  we  offenders  equally  with  the  North ;  had  we  violated  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  Church  ;  had  we  dishonored  its  official  pledges  and  trifled 
with  its  most  sacred  stipulations ;  had  we  assailed  ihe  constitutional  tenures  of  office, 
and  claimed  the  right  of  taking  lack  what  we  never  bestowed  and  never  had  it  in  our 
power  to  bestow  ;  it  might  be  different  with  us ;  we  might  feel,  not  as  now  ;  as  it  is,  we 
know  ourselves  to  be  greatly  wronged  and  deeply  injured,  and  cannot  respect  as  we 
wish  to,  either  the  motives  or  the  means  embarked  in  the  effort  to  degrade  and  destroy 
us.  But  to  return.  It  may  be  urged,  that  our  view  of  the  theory  of  Methodist  Church 
government,  will  bring  the  Episcopacy  or  Executive  Department  in  conflict  with  the 
General  Conference.  In  our  judgment,  however,  it  is  the  only  mode  of  avoiding  it, 
and  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  that  upon  the  plan  we  oppose  the  two  cannot  co-exist  in 
effective  action.  We  regard  it  as  entirely  important  that  the  General  Conference  should 
have  all  the  power  now  properly  belonging  to  it.  We  would  not  deprive  it  of  a  parti- 
cle, of  its  present  power  or  right.  What  we  except  to,  is  the  late  exorbitant  claim  of 
power,  (as  by  Bishop  Hamline,)  never  before  asserted  in  behalf  of  it,  at  least  since 
1808.  The  General  Conference  must  possess  the  necessary  power  to  hold  in  salutary 
check  any  tendency  of  the  Episcopacy  to  assume  or  usurp  what  does  not  by  right  of  law 
belong  to  it,  and  such  power  it  certainly  has  at  present,  and  we  think  in  just  and  ade- 
quate degree.  And  to  accomplish  the  same  purposes  of  good  to  the  Church,  it  is  equally 
necessary  that  in  the  constitutional  distribution  of  power,  the  Episcopacy  should  not 
depend  upon  the  will  of  the  General  Conference  for  right  and  prerogative.  Hence  the 
constitution  places  these  beyond  the  control  of  the  General  Conference.  We  have 
shown  with  perhaps  sufficient  force  and  clearness,  that  the  General  Conference  right  of 
ejection,  has  no  connection  with  the  rights  and  powers  of  Episcopacy.  These  were 
pre-settled  in  the  constitution,  long  before  the  existence  of  a  General  Conference  or  the 
election  of  a  Bishop  in  any  proper  sense,  for  the  informal  election  of  Asbury  in  1784, 
was  perfectly  null  as  to  any  right  of  election,  there  being  neither  Elders  nor  Deacons 

Jin  the  body,  except  the  Wesleyan  "assistants"  of  Coke  and  Asbury,  and  a  merely  lay 
election  could  certainly  confer  no  clerical  or  ecclesiastical  right.  It  was  entirely  proper 
to  consult  the  wishes  of  that  body  of  good  and  sensible  men,  but  they  had  just  admitted 
to  Mr.  Wesley,  they  had  no  right  to  elect  any  man  to  clerical  orders  of  any  kind. 
Nothing  is  clearer  than  that  Bishops  are  elected  by  the  General  Conference  without  de- 
riving any  power  or  privilege  from  it.  The  General  Conference  gives  nothing  consti- 
tuentiy  connected  with  the  office,  and  can  take  nothing  away,  except  judicially.  Regu- 
lations relating  to  the  ways  and  means  of  Episcopal  administration,  not  affecting  the 
rights  of  office,  are  made  by  the  General  Conference,  with  full  and  perfect  powers,  and  these 
reduce  or  increase  Episcopal  power  in  fact,  according  to  their  nature  and  character,  but 
our  argument  turrm  entirely  upon  tilings  vital  to  Episcopacy,  as  a  fundamental  power. 
The  Northern  argument  against  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  as  set  forth  from  the  fathers 
and  founders  of  the  Church  in  this  sketch,  which  we  are  compelled  to  collect  from  differ- 
ent sources  and  collate  as  best  we  can,  is  so  entirely  miscellaneous  in  character  and 
Protean  in  shape,  we  find  it  difficult  to  give  suitable  form  and  consistency  to  anyexami- 


157-  ^ 

nation  of  it.  The  critical  reader  will  find  himself  a  little  disserted  in  this  respect  oc- 
casionally, but  when  he  recollects  that  we  are  only  pledged  to  general  outline  views,  he 
will  perhaps,  after  discounting  such  real  or  seeming  irregularity,  meet  with  sufficient 
point  and  concentration  in  the  argument,  as  a  whole,  to  enable  him  to  judge  of  the  true 
merits  of  the  question  at  issue. 

Is  it  possible  for  any  person  of  intelligence  and  candor  to  examine  the  questions  in 
controversy  respecting  Methodist  Episcopacy,  without  being  struck  with  the  contrast 
between  the  new  Episcopal  theory  and  the  old,  as  we  have  found  it  in  the  staple  pro- 
ductions of  the  Church?  In  the  common  convictions  and  standard  writings  of  the 
Church  for  sixty  years,  Episcopacy  has  been  a  distinct  and  well  defined  organism,  so 
constitutionally  interwoven  with  the  government,  as  to  give  name  and  character  to  the 
Church.  According  to  the  new  theory,  it  is  a  mere  "ministerial  executive  regulation" 
of  the  General  Conference,  which  they  can  dispense  with  or  continue  at  pleasure.  With 
"the  fathers,"  it  is  the  great  primary  principle  of  Church  order,  expanded  into  an  ac- 
tual department  of  the  government,  so  connected  witli  the  other  departments  as  to  se- 
cure energy  and  harmony  of  oo-operation,  and  yet  so  independent  of  them  in  the  ful- 
filment of  its  high  trust,  that  except  for  crime  or  mal  official  conduct  in  the  incumbents, 
it  cannot  be  changed  from  what  it  is,  unless  by  a  change  of  the  constitution.  The  re- 
cent re-construction  of  the  old  theory  teaches,  that  the  General  Conference  may  find  it 
necessary  either  to  discontinue  the  "regulation"  of  having  general  superintendents,  or 
may  so  regulate  the  fact  and  plan  of  Episcopal  oversight,  as  to  have  the  supervision  of 
whatever  kind  the  Conference  may  prefer.  It  used  to  be  thought,  that  Episcopacy  was 
the  most  original  elementary  agency  in  the  organic  formation  of  the  Church.  The  late 
discovery  is,  that  the  General  Conference  originated  both  Episcopacy  and  Episcopal 
authority.  The  old  doctrine  was,  that  Episcopacy  pre-existed  and  united  with  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  in  giving  birth  to  the  General  Conference,  and  finally  that  these  as 
the  superior  authority,  by  imposing  proper  restrictions  upon  it,  provided  amply  for  the 
security  of  the  parties  creating  it,  as  one  of  the  principal  organs  of  Church  action. 
This  error  is  now  corrected,  by  its  being  ascertained  that  the  General  Conference  is  a 
self  constituted  body,  limited  in  right  and  power  only  by  "self  imposed"  restraint.  The 
former  doctrine  was,  that  in  every  original  sense,  Episcopacy  was  derived  from  Wes- 
ley— that  ordination  by  Wesley  gave  birth  to  it,  and  that  election  by  the  lay  Conference 
of  1734,  was  not  eveu  an  incident  in  its  institution,  but  a  mere  "receiving"  of  what 
Wesley  had  provided  for  his  societies  in  America.  The  contrary  of  this  is  now  assum- 
ed with  imposing  boldness,  and  it  is  contended  that  Episcopacy  is  of  conventional  Con- 
ference origin.  Former  opinion  admitted  the  conventional  character  of  the  Conference 
of  1784,  but  was  careful  to  discriminate,  that  in  whatever  other  aspects  it  was  conven- 
tional, it  had  no  agency  in  the  institution  of  Episcopacy.  Now,  however,  it  was  a  prin- 
cipal agency,  for  without  this  assumption,  the  subsequent  agency  of  election  would  lose 
the  virtue  claimed  for  it.  It  was  prevalently  understood  formerly,  that  as  the  General 
Conference  was  the  last  organic  department  erected  in  the  construction  of  the  present 
government  of  the  Church,  it  could  have  had  no  participation  in  producing  the  others 
and  none  of  their  powers  except  by  transfer.  Now  the  claim  is,  it  possesses  all  the 
power  of  both,  because  the  old  departments  conceded  to  the  new,  upon  its  establish- 
ment, that  it  might  elect  and  try  Bishops  for  "improper  conduct."  and  say  when  a  new 
Annual  Conference  shall  be  created,  although  without  any  right  or  power  to  make  a 
Bishop  or  organize  an  Annual  Conference.  The  Episcopacy  being  in  the  full  vigor  of 
maturity,  before  the  projection  of  the  General  Conference  system,  it  did  not  occur  to 
the  founders  and  authors  of  the  economy  of  American  Methodism,  that  the  latter  would 

•If 


I 

15S 

claim  paternity  and  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  every  thing  connected  with  the  former. 
That  this  is  now  done,  however,  few  will  attempt  to  deny.  We  used  to  think,  as  a 
Church,  that  in  Episcopacy  was  to  be  sought  the  constitutional  headship  of  the  govern- 
ment. How  far  below  this  it  is  now  attempted  to  reduce  it,  may  be  judged  of  by  the 
mass  of  evidence  we  submit.  The  Church  was  of  opinion  that  from  179'2  to  1808,  the 
General  Conference  had  too  much  power,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  restrict  it  by  con- 
stitutional prohibitions.  Now  the  latter  claims  more  power  than  it  was  supposed  to 
possess  before  the  reduction  of  its  powers,  when  consisting  of  "all  the  Preachers  in 
full  connection" — thfct  is,  all  the  Deacons  and  Elders  in  the  Traveling  Ministry.  As 
parties  to  the  constitution,  the  old  doctrine  was  that  eacli  department  is  rigidly  subject 
to  the  regulations  of  law.  Now  it  seems  to  be  thought,  that  the  legislative  department 
cannot  act  unlawfully,  as  it  can  in  "two  minutes,"  supply  itself  witii  law  in  any  emer- 
gency. The  very  existence  of  the  restrictive  rules,  proves  clearly,  that  the  former  doc- 
trine was,  that  should  the  General  Conference  obviously  violate  the  constitution,  it  is 
the  right  and  the  duty  of  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences,  to  interpose  and  resist. 
It  is  now  the  doctrine,  however,  that  the  General  Conference  is  the  only  judge  of  the 
constitutionality  of  its  own  acts.  The  old  theory,  which  impresses  itself  upon  the 
very  face  of  the  constitution,  laws,  and  administration  of  the  Church,  that  the  executive 
power  of  the  government  belongs  essentially  to  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferen- 
ces, is  superceded  by  the  assumption  of  general  executive  power  in  behalf  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Our  fathers,  as  we  have  shown,  knew  no  better  than  that  the  Episco- 
pacy and  Annual  Conferences  derived  their  rights  and  powers  from  the  constitution,  and 
had  all  they  now  possess,  substantially,  beside  much  they  have  parted  with  by  conces- 
sion, before  they  thought  of  creating  a  General  Conference.  Their  sons,  it  seems,  are 
to  be  better  taught,  and  all  right  and  power  of  whatever  kind,  is  to  be  credited  to  the 
General  Conference.  The  whole  Church  has  always  regarded  Annual  Conferences  as 
independent  organic  bodies,  subject  only  to  General  Conference  control  as  law  directs. 
The  new  theory  annihilates  this  independence  entirely,  by  assuming  that  the  absolute 
right  of  control  in  relation  to  these  bodies,  is  in  the  General  Conference,  and  that  they 
exist  only  by  its  permission.  Instead  of  which,  nothing  is  plainer,  than  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  by  direct  provision  of  the  constitution,  under  the  control  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  in  the  last  resort,  and  it  will  be  seen  by  every  one  how  intimately 
Episcopal  oversight  and  its  executive  rights  and  powers,  are  interwoven  with  the  An- 
nual Conference  system.  Thus  presenting  the  checks  and  balances  to  which  we  have 
adverted.  Until  recently,  it  seemed  to  be  well  understood,  that  as  the  Church,  or  rather 
the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences,  were  of  mature  age  and  possessed  the  whole 
official  authority  of  the  Church,  before  they  organized  the  General  Conference,  and  as 
they  conceded  none  of  their  fundamental  powers  to  that  body,  the  General  Conference 
could  have  no  claim  to  disturb  them  in  the  functional  exercise  of  their  powers  and 
rights.  In  this,  however,  modern  enlightenment  shows  them  to  have  been  mistaken. 
It  has  always  been  well  understood,  that  limited  legislative  and  judicial  power,  as  well 
as  some  of  the  powers  of  general  administration,  had  been  invested  in  the  General  Con- 
ference by  the  organic  regulations  giving  it  existence.  It  has  always  been  admitted  too, 
that  in  matters  not  vitally  affecting  the  independant  functions  of  the  Episcopacy  and 
Annual  Conferences,  that  is,  in  things  incidental  and  modal  in  relation  to  legislative, 
judicial,  and  administrative  rights,  as  invested  by  law,  it  is  competent  for  the  General 
Conference  to  give  and  take  away,  and  it  has  occasionally  done  both.  But  this  view  of 
the  subject  differs  materially  from  the  one  which  allows  the  Conference  to  regard  its 
own  will,  at  any  time,  as  the  only  law  of  action  in  the  case.  The  Church,  for  more  than 


159 

half  a  century,  has  published  to  the  world,  that  its  Episcopacy  was  derived  from  Wes- 
ley— lhat  his  rights  and  powers  of  ordination  and  superintendence  were  transferred  to 
Coke  and  Asbury,  Bishops  of  his  own  selection  and  constitution,  he  having  consecrated 
the  former  and  commissioned  him  to  consecrate  the  latter,  without  any  the  most  remote 
allusion  to  any  organic  action  by  the  American  Preachers,  in  the  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy. The  Church  having  likewise  published  to  all  during  this  whole  period,  that  the 
only  act  of  the  lay  Preachers  of  the  day,  was  to  "receive"  the  Bishops  of  Wesley's  ap- 
pointment, as  the  superintendents  of  the  new  Church ;  thus  proclaiming  the  institution 
of  Episcopacy  to  be  the  first  creative  act  of  the  new  organization.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  it  must  strike  all  as  strange  and  unaccountable,  how  Episcopacy  has  become  a 
derivative  power  in  relation  to  the  General  Conference.  Would  Dr.  Coke  have  pre- 
sumed or  dared  to  ordain  Mr.  Asbury  upon  his  election  by  the  lay  Preachers  of  1784, 
without  authority  from  Wesley?  Would  Asbury  have  presumed  or  dared  to  accept  or- 
dination upon  such  a  basis?  The  answer  is  negative  in  both  cases.  All  know  that 
neither  would  have  presumed  so  to  act.  And  yet  the  now  popular  argument  for  General 
Conference  right,  respecting  Episcopacy,  relies  mainly  upon  this  election  for  its  sup- 
port. Failing  to  prove  this  election  valid,  as  inevitably  they  must,  it  is  irresistably 
certain  that  the  General  Conference  has  no  claim  of  superiority  over  Episcopa- 
cy on  the  ground  of  what  is  so  often  called  "election  by  the  Presbyters."  And  as 
Episcopacy  existed  in  full  and  effective  force,  valid  and  ample  as  now,  with- 
out deriving  a  particle  of  right  or  power  from  the  "College  of  Presbyters"  as  Coke 
and  Asbury  say  of  the  Eldership,  after  they  had  created  it,  under  authority  from  Wes- 
ley,'it  shows  most  conclusively  that  General  Conference  election  can  confer  nothing  in 
any  way  essential  to  the  Episcopal  office.  The  ordination  service  (itself  a  part  of  the 
constitution)  is  evidence  of  the  plainest  kind,  that  no  Episcopal  right  is  conferred  by 
by  mere  election.  The  ordination  certificate  attests  the  same  fact.  The  design  of 
election,  which  is  both  proper  and  important,  is  confined  to  the  suitableness  and  qualifi- 
cations of  the  incumbent.  We  have  shown  that  it  is  in  no  sense  an  investiture.  It 
merely  authorizes  his  elevation  to  the  Episcopate  by  ordination.  Both  the  power  and 
form  of  ordination  pro-date  and  are  independent  of  our  present  Presbyterial  election, 
and  beyond  General  Conference  control.  Against  this,  it  proves  nothing  to  say,  no 
Bishop  can  be  made  without  the  consent  of  the  General  Conference.  This  is  admitted, 
and  we  are  as  ready  as  our  opponents  to  admit  the  fitness  and  importance  of  the  ar- 
rangement. It  secures  the  important  result  that  Bishops  are  not  allowed  to  select  their 
associates,  and  that  none  can  be  ordained  except  approved  by  a  mnjority  (we  wish  it 
were  a  two-thirds  majority)  of  the  General  Conference.  Still  it  proves  nothing  against 
our  argument  for  reasons  before  given.  Suppose  wo  say  the  General  Conference  and 
Episcopacy  together,  cannot  make  a  man  a  Bishop  without  his  consent1  Does  this  make 
the  will  of  the  man  in  any  way  constitutive  of  the  office?  Test  the  matter  in  another 
form;  ceasing  to  ordain,  would  not  our  constitutional  Episcopacy  perish,  despite  a 
thousand  elections?  We  have  seen  the  Episcopacy  and  General  Conference  existing 
in  constitutional  connection,  as  independent  departments,  except  so  far  as  this  inde- 
pendence is  qualified  by  the  terms  of  union.  They  exist  and  act  together,  the  one  the 
Head  the  other  the  Body.  Each  has  separate  duties  with  which  the  other  may  not  in- 
terfere, so  that  essentially  they  are  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  government,  although 
essentially,  they  exist  and  operate  in  a  state  of  mutual  inter-dependence,  as  do  all  co- 
ordinate branches  of  the  government.  Each  constitutes  a  distinct  organism,  and  has  a 
separate  anatomy,  a  system  of  its  own. 


160 

The  power  of  each  is  derived  from  the  constitution,  the  nature  of  the  general  sys- 
tem. The  distribution  of  power  is  regulated  by  organic  law.  If  the  Bishops  offend, 
there  is  the  law  to  correct  and  punish  them.  The  General  Conference  cannot,  with  all 
its  latitude  of  power  and  right  in  other  respects,  exceed  the  restrictions  imposed  upon 
it,  by  the  departments  which  gave  it  being,  without  a  breach  of  trust  as  well  as  violation 
of  right,  and  the  remedy  must  be  found  in  the  counteractive  forces  of  the  system.  The 
Episcopacy  has  powers  not  derived  from  the  General  or  Annual  Conferences.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  has  nothing  but  what  it  derived  from  the  Annual  Conferences  and  Epis- 
copacy. This  is  not  introduced  to  prove  Episcopacy  above  the  General  Conference,  (no 
part  of  our  reasoning  implies  this)  but  merely  to  show  that  the  General  Conference  is 
not  every  thing,  and  possessed  of  all  power,  as  lately  claimed  by  the  opponents  in  this 
argument.  Were  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences  acting  together,  disposed 
to  usurp  power,  as  we  believe  the  General  Conference  has  lately  done,  the  latter  with 
its  entire  power,  might  be  overthrown  in  a  short  time.  By  direction  of  the  power 
'  creating  it,  and  without  the  permission  of  the  Annual  Conferences  and  Episcopacy,  it 
can  only  meet  once  in  four  years.  It  cannot  call  itself  together  or  meet  at  will,  and 
should  the  executive  department,  embracing  the  Episcopacy  and  Annual  Conferences, 
refuse  to  execute  its  wishes,  the  government  would  be  at  an  end  ;  and  this  further 
proves  the  inter-dependence  of  the  departments,  and  that  the  supremacy  of  the  Ger.er 
al  Conference,  to  the  extent  contended  for,  is  a  mere  fiction,  and  always  must  remai 
one,  under  the  present  constitution.  We  prove  that  the  Episcopacy  is  strictly  an 
properly  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government,  by  showing  that  all  the  other  branch- 
es, much  less  the  General  Conference  alone,  have  no  right  or  power  to  do  it  away,  ex- 
cept by  a  change  of  the  constitution.  Each  department,  although  connexional  as  to 
the  rest,  is  separate  and  independent,  that  is,  protected  against  the  invasions  of  the 
other  branches  by  the  constitution.  The  whole  of  section  4th,  in  the  Discipline,  is 
strictly  organic,  law  and  has  all  the  force  of  any  part  of  the  constitution,  or  else  the 
General  Conference  has  no  power  with  regard  to  Episcopacy  of  any  kind,  except  as 
usurped  by  gratuitous  interference.  The  grant  of  power  to  "make  rules  and  regula- 
tions''/^ the  Church,  excepts  in  every  thing  important,  both  Episcopacy  and  its  plan 
of  oversight.  For  this  there  existed  the  plainest  and  most  irresistible  reason.  Not 
only  had  the  General  Conference  done  nothing  toward  the  institution  of  Episcopacy, 
but  even  the  Church  had  not.  Its  existence  dates  back  before  the  birth  of  either.  It 
was  the  first  grand  substantive  arrangerneni,  around  which  all  others  subsequently 
clustered  and  assumed  organic  form.  The  whole  machinery  of  Church  administration 
received  life  and  motion  from  it.  The  primary  action  and  continued  impulse  of  the 
whole  system  are  traceable  to  it,  and  as  the  government  has  always  been  organized, 
would  become  defunct  without  it.  We  are  compelled  to  think  the  view  of  the  sub- 
ject we  propose  is  the  only  one  which  can  possibly  relieve  the  Church  from  the  charge 
of  having  a  most  illiberal  and  tyrannical  government,  so  far  as  its  theory  is  concerned, 
whatever  may  be  the  character  of  its  practical  administration.  We  present,  in  our 
attempt  to  exhibit  the  government  as  we  find  it,  a  nearly  equal  distribution  of  its  pov.  - 
ers  between  the  Episcopacy,  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  General  Conference,  the 
General  Pastorate  being  essentially  adjunctive  to  the  two  former,  although  for  conve- 
nience, and  in  view  of  some  purposes  and  functions  peculiar  to  it,  generally  recogni- 
zed as  a  separate  department.  And  among  many  other  inferences  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance, we  thus  reach  the  principal  one  had  in  view  in  the  course  of  our  reasoning, 
that  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  General 
Conference,  except  in  its  judicial  capacity  as  a  court  of  trial,  proceeding  against  him 


161 

upon  a  charge  of  improper  conduct,  and  this  for  the  general  comprehensive  reason, 
that  the  jus  propridatis  as  it  regards  the  chief  constitutional  officer  of  the  Church,  is 
not  in  the  General  Conference,  but  in  the  several  departments  of  the  government 
equally,  by  direction  of  the  organic  laws  of  the  entire  system.  See  an  able  and  inter- 
esting argument  on  this  subject,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Latta,  which  has  yet  to  be  answered. 
We  know  it  will  be  said  that  such  a  general  view  of  the  subject  as  we  have  taken, 
amounts  to  "Prelacy,  Popery,  Puseyism,"  and  so  of  the  rest.  With  this  we  have 
nothing  to  do.  The  charge  recoils  from  us  upon  the  Fathers  and  Founders,  the  Apostles 
and  Pillars,  the  Defenders  and  Advocates  of  the  Church,  as  a  true  Episcopal  Church, 
unless  it  can  be  made  appear  that  we  misrepresent  them.  We  show,  we  believe  con- 
clusively, that  we  simply  adhere  to  constitution  and  law,  the  principles  and  opinions 
of  the  Church  since  the  first  day  of  its  organization.  If  the  system  be  wrong,  be  it 
so;  the  arguments  remain  unaffected.  Our  only  task  has  been  to  show  what  the  system 
is,  and  before  we  are  abused  as  aiming  at  the  projection  of  an  Episcopal  "supremacy," 
let  our  arguments  be  answered,  as  we  have  attempted  to  give  them,  in  the  language  of 
reason  and  sobriety,  and  for  the  purposes  of  rational  conviction.  No  amount  of  decla- 
mation and  assertion,  unsupported  by  argument  and  evidence,  no  tempest  of  personal 
abuse,  no  attempt  at  sneer  and  banter,  can  move  or  affect  us.  We  must  be  over- 
thown  on  the  ground  of  argument,  or  remain  unvanquished.  This  is  no  boast.  We 
mean  simply,  that  on  the  subjects  upon  which  we  have  written,  we  have  offered  an  ex- 
tended series  of  arguments  which  strike  us  as  satisfactory  and  conclusive,  and  before 
any  man  or  number  of  men  can  obtain  any  advantage  of  us,  it  must  be  shown  demon- 
stratively, that  the  reasons  and  arguments  in  question,  ought  not  to  have  impressed  us 
as  they  hare. 

Left  to  the  undisturbed  current  of  my  own  thoughts  and  feelings,  I  should  not  have 
taken  it  for  granted  that  this  Review  was  destined  to  attract,  in  any  unusual  way,  the 
attention  of  those  arrayed  against  me,  in  the  conflict  to  which  it  relates,  but  already 
assaulted  in  advance  with  Vandal  injustice  and  want  of  truth,  I  have  been  led  to  sup- 
pose, from  a  pre-judgment  so  every  way  gratuitous  and  illiberal,  that  the  unmanly 
malevolence  that  could  not  wait  to  know  whether  it  was  uttering  truth  or  falsehood, 
might  probably  give  me  a  notoriety  upon  which  I  should  otherwise  not  have  calculated. 
I  shall  await  and  note  results  with  care  and  patience,  until  it  may  become  necessary  to 
attend  to  them. 

A  few  items,  more  or  less  personal  to  myself,  and  yet  intimately  connected  with 
some  of  the  bearings  of  this  discussion,  and  I  have  done.  I  wish  to  say  first  and  dis- 
tinctly, I  have  not  written,  dictated,  or  suggested  a  single  line  on  the  merits  of  the 
controversy,  or  any  particular  part  of  it,  or  in  relation  to  any  person  or  persons  con- 
nected with  it,  to  which  I  have  not  attached  my  name.  The  various  charges,  there- 
fore, suggestions  and  insinuations,  which  have  appeared  in  Northern  papers,  intended 
to  implicate  me  in  this  respect,  are  at  least  as  utterly  unjust  as  the  fact  that  they  are 
false  can  make  them.  From  what  motives  I  have  been  thus  assailed,  without  having 
by  any  act,  or  any  part  of  my  conduct,  furnished  any  reason  or  course,  or  semblance 
of  either,  for  the  assaults  made  upon  me,  it  will  not  perhaps,  be  difficult  to  determine. 
The  men  in  the  principal  instances,  are  a  sufficient  comment  upon  the  motives,  and 
accordingly  I  have  received  numerous  communications  from  Northern  as  well  as 
SouthernVources,  assuring  me  these  attacks  are  well  understood  and  properly  appre- 
ciated, as  having  their  origin  in  personal  malignity  and  party  purposes. 

I  first  heard  of  Bishop  Andrew's  connection  with  slavery  and  the  appeal  of  Har- 
ding, in  Baltimore,  on  my  way  to  General  Conference,  in  April  last.  I  did  not  iak» 


162 

tny  seat  in  that  body  until  the  sixth  day  of  the  session.  By  this  time  the  parties 
North  and  South  were  pretty  well  defined.  The  two  or  three  first  meetings  of  the 
Southern  Delegations  after  my  arrival,  I  did  not  attend.  I  was  anxious  to  learn  the 
true  position  and  purposes  of  the  parties.  I  was  soon  induced  to  believe,  not  only  that 
the  cases  of  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew  would  bring  on  a  conflict  between  the  North 
and  South,  but  that  new  ground  would  be  taken  by  the  North,  on  the  main  question, 
whenever  these  cases  became  the  occasion  of  discussion  and  action.  I  early  sought  to 
learn  the  opinions  and  views  of  men,  likely  to  exert  no  little  influence  with  what  had 
usually  been  known  as  the  "conservative"  party,  and  was  surprised  to  Jearn,  that  they 
were  decided  and  active  in  the  approval  and  furtherance  of  a.  course,  which  I  was  satis- 
fied the  South  could  not  submit  to.  Circumstances  compelled  me  to  believe,  that  the 
old  compromise  ground  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  had  been  or  was 
about  to  be  abandoned.  A  large  number  of  Conferences,  and  thousands  of  individual 
petitioners  North,  had  addressed  the  General  Conference,  remonstrating  in  effect, 
against  the  provisions,  and  demanding  changes  infringing  the  purposes  of  law.  Under 
these  circumstances  and  such  an  aspect  of  things,  I  met  the  Southern  Delegates,  and 
availed  myself  of  an  opportunity  to  say  to  them,  in  substance,  that  I  had  come  to  the 
painful  conclusion  that  it  was  the  settled  purpose  and  policy  of  the  old  Anti-Slavery 
Conservative  party,  to  take  ground  with  the  Abolitionists  against  the  South,  by  de- 
clining any  longer  to  assert  and  maintain  the  compromise  law  of  slavery,  as  generally 
understood  by  the  South,  and  especially  as  explained  by  the  preceding  General  Confer- 
ence. That  so  far  as  I  had  been  able  to  understand  them,  they  were  off  the  compromise 
of  the  Discipline,  and  likely  to  form  new  associations,  injurious  if  not  fatal  to  South- 
ern Methodism.  That  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  South  to  be  watchful  and  firm  as 
a  Minority,  or  they  would  find  themselves  in  a  position  fearfully  detrimental  to  the 
interests  of  the  Church  in  all  the  Southern  Conferences.  I  then  stated,  that  in  view  of 
the  petitions  before  the  Conference,  a  large  portion  of  which  were  new  and  peculiar  in 
their  character,  and  other  evidence  not  less  convincing,  to  which  my  attention  had  been 
directed,  it  was  my  opinion  that  a  plan  existed,  more  or  less  matured,  the  object  of 
which  was  the  subversion  of  the  slavery  compromise,  and  the  effect  of  which  would  be, 
if  carried  out.  to  reduce  the  South  to  the  necessity  of  adopting  one  of  three  courses. 
1st.  They  must  submit  to  the  outrage  regardless  of  Southern  rights  and  interests  ;  or 
2d,  appealing  to  the  only  constitutional  means  in  their  power,  assert  those  rights  and 
interests  by  remaining  firmly  upon  the  basis  of  the  Discipline,  and  claiming  the  pro- 
tection of  law  ;  or  3d,  must  go  or  be  forced  off  as  a  secession,  without  any  interest  in 
the  Book  Concern  or  other  funds  or  property  of  the  Church.  After  these  remarks,  I 
requested  to  know  of  all  present,  publicly  and  explicitly,  whether  it  was  their  purpose 
to  abide  by  the  Discipline  as  it  was  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  all  without  a  single 
dissentient  having  so  pledged  themselves,  I  assured  them  I  should  be  most  glad  to  find 
myself  mistaken  as  to  the  fears  and  conviction  I  had  expressed,  in  reference  to  the 
plan  or  purpose  to  which  I  had  alluded. 

I  carefully  avoided  any  allusion  which  might  in  any  way  implicate  members  of  the 
General  Conference  beyond  the  mere  fact,  that  I  was  obliged  to  think  many  of  them 
were  pursuing  a  course  directly  calculated,  whatever  their  motives  and  purposes  might 
be,  to  bring  about  the  result  I  feared.  And  in  proof  and  illustration  of  this,  having 
made  the  remark  with  regard  to  many,  I  stated  that  one  who  had  been  long  looked  to 
and  regarded  as  especially  the  friend  and  champion  of  the  South,  had  avowed  opinions 
and  urged  a  course  of  action  in  relation  to  both  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  which 
would  further  the  objects  of  the  plan  or  purpose  I  had  brought  to  their  notice,  as  effec- 


163 

tually  as  though  he  were  the  Cataline  of  the  conspiracy.  It  was  my  intention  to  say 
distinctly,  that  I  believed  the  purpose  existed  North  to  disturb  and  destroy  the  com- 
promise of  the  Discipline,  as  discussed  in  these  pages,  and  that  the  position  of  Dr. 
Bond,  as  reported  to  me  in  relation  to  the  cases  of  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  would 
contribute  directly  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  object.  I  had  heard  from  several  dif- 
ferent sources,  that  Dr.  Bond  had  said  that  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in 
Harding's  case,  must,  and  doubtless  would  be  sustained  by  the  General  Conference; 
that  Bishop  Andrew  had  not  kept  faith,  or  had  acted  in  bad  faith  in  relation  to  those 
who  had  elected  him;  they  selecting  him  because  he  was  not  a  slaveholder,  and  he  af- 
terwards becoming  one,  and  yet  holding  office  ;  that  he  was  a  dishonored  man  or  had 
acted  dishonorably  ;  that  lie  must  resign  or  be  deposed,  as  nothing  else  would  prevent 
Northern  Conferences  from  secession,  and  meet  the  demands  of  Northern  public  opin- 
ion ;  that  the  General  Conference  had  full  power  to  depose  or  lay  aside  Bishop  An- 
drew ;  and  that  it  might  be  done  by  merely  striking  his  name  from  the  Minutes  and 
Church  Records  ;  that  for  such  a  course,  the  Conference  had  precedent  in  the  instances 
of  Wesley  and  Coke,  or  at  least  one  of  them;  and  that  this  or  something'  equivalent 
must  be  done,  whether  tho  South  would  submit  to  it  or  not.  These  statements,  which 
I  give  in  substance  and  meaning,  and  not  perhaps  in  the  precise  language  and  form  in 
which  they  were  uttered,  were  reported  by  different  persons  as  coming  from  Dr.  Bond, 
and  induced  me  and  many  others  to  believe,  that  his  intended  course  would  as  directly 
and  effectually  tend  to  overthrow  the  compromise  of  the  law  of  slavery,  as  the  purpose 
or  plan  believed  to  exist  in  the  North.  The  recent  public  declaration,  that  I  stated  a 
plan  existed  among  Northern  members  of  the  General  Conference,  approved  and  encour- 
aged by  Dr.  Bond,  to  drive  off  the  South  as  a  secession,  with  a  view  to  deprive  them  of 
their  equitable  interest  in  the  Buck  Concern  and  other  Church  property,  is  as  false  as 
any  statement  can  be,  because  utterly  devoid  of  truth.  My  reasoning  upon  the  facts 
stated,  and  in  relation  to  the  choice  of  evils  we  should  probably  be  called  to  make,  did,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  call  attention  to  the  loss  of  Church  property,  as  consequent  upon  se- 
cession, should  we  be  driven  to  it,  and  I  accordingly  invoked  the  South  on  this,  as  well 
as  other  accounts,  not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  provoked  to  such  a  step.  I  urged  it 
as  my  belief,  that  the  law  of  slavery  had  been  conspired  against,  and  should  it  turn  out,  that 
I  had  anticipated  events,  and  understood  movements  correctly,  nothing  would  be  left  the 
Minority  of  the  South,  but  unconditional  submission,  constitutional  resistance  by  solemn 
Protest,  and  appeal  to  the  conservative  powers  of  the  Church,  or  finally,  voluntary  or  forced 
secession  with  forfeiture  of  rights  as  before.  All  this  I  did  without  disguise,  and  still  be- 
lieve I  was  correct.  The  whole  current  of  events  since  the  hour  I  made  the  statement, 
goes  to  show  that  I  did  not  greatly,  if  at  all,  miscalculate.  Individuals  and  parties 
have  acted  and  continue  to  act,  as  I  anticipated.  The  plan  or  purpose  to  which  I  invok- 
ed the  reluctant  attention  of  the  South,  has  been  ever  since  in  course  of  development, 
and  the  somewhat  indirect  but  essentially  auxiliary  influences,  to  which  I  made  allusion, 
are  visibly  increasing  with  the  progress  of  this  great  Church  difficulty.  My  only  ob- 
ject in  alluding  to  Dr.  Bond  as  I  did,  was  to  make  the  impression,  that  whatever  might 
have  been  the  hopes  of  the  South,  connected  with  him  and  other  leaders  of  the  so  cal- 
led conservative  party,  that  ground  of  safety,  was,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  relied  upon  no 
longer.  To  understand  my  true  position,  in  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  this  ex- 
planation, it  is  necessary  to  enquire,  1st.  was  I  mistaken  with  regard  to  the  facts 
upon  which  I  predicated  my  opinion?  2d,  was  that  opinion  a  fair  and  natural  infer- 
ence from  the  facts?  Beside,  the  mass  of  evidence  in  various  forms  furnished  in  this 
Review,  making  it  entirely  certain  that  a  purpose  did  exist  in  the  North,  no  longer  to 


164 

submit  to  the  law  of  compromise,  as  explained  at  length  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1840,  the  full  and  proper  proof  isfound'in  the  uniform  language  of  the  petitions,  "that 
the  General  Conference  would  take  measures  entirely  to  separate  slavery  from  the 
Church"  not  the  Episcopacy,  not  the  Traveling  Ministry  only,  but  the  whole,  Church. 
On  presenting  these  innumerable  petitions  -from  nine  Conferences  and  some  ten  thous- 
and persons,  the  Northern  Delegates  stated,  without  any  attempt  at  concealment,  and 
with  almost  stereotyped  uniformity,  not  only  that  the  petitioners  (generally)  were  well 
known  to  them,  were  respectable,  and  as  intelligent  and  pious  as  any  in  other  portions 
of  the  Church,  but  always  and  especially  that  they  petitioned  from  principle  and  convic- 
tion, that  it  was  matter  of  conscience  and  of  settled  purpose  that  they  did  so,  and 
finally,  that  they  would  "never  rest  until  they  obtained  what  they  prayed  for."  Tiie 
same  purpose  has  been  avowed  and  published  unequivocally  and  repeatedly  in  Zi- 
on's  Herald  and  other  papers,  by  large  and  influential  portions  of  the  Church, 
Ministers  and  people,  including  delegates  of  the  last  General  Conference.  The 
fact  of  the  purpose  charged  in  rny  statement,  has  in  every  thing  material,  been 
communicated  to  Dr.  Bond,  and  published  by  him  for  the  information  of  the  Church  and 
world.  So  far  then  as  this  item  is  concerned,  who  can  doubt  as  to  the  facts?  But  did 
Dr.  Bond  avow  the  opinions  and  make  the  statements  attributed  to  him'!  That  he  did  I 
have  never  doubted.  They  were  heard  and  reported  not  by  a  single  individual  only,  but 
by  different  persons.  The  most,  if  not  all  of  them,  have  been  since  assumed  and  as- 
serted, admitted  or  implied,  in  the  editorials  of  his  paper.  The  entire  course  and  tem- 
per of  Dr.  Bond,  have  been  in  keeping  with  them,  and  the  internal  evidence  in  the  case, 
as  well  as  that  of  witnesses,  endorses  the  correctness  of  our  original  information.  Let 
the  impartial  reader  now  take  the  plan  or  purpose,  which  we  prove  existed  North,  not 
to  abide  by  the  slavery  compromise  as  understood  by  the  South  and  affirmed  by  the 
General  Conference,  and  take  also  the  position  of  Dr.  Bond  as  Editor,  and  the  former 
friend  and  advocate  of  the  South,  and  how  would  the  opinions  avowed  by  him  be  likely  to 
affect  the  purpose  in  question?  Would  or  would  not  the  opinions  and  views  ascribed  to 
Dr.  Bond,  and  known  to  be  concurred  in  lo  a  great  extent,  by  the  Conservative  party 
generally,  be  directly  calculated  to  further  the  Northern  purpose  we  have  noticed,  to 
destroy  the  good  oid  via  media  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery?  Was  not  the 
inference  that  they  would,  both  natural  and  necessary?  If  not,  we  are  at  fault.  But 
if  they  were,  then  we  cannot  be  blamed,  for  all  will  admit  that  the  interests  involved 
rendered  it  necessary  that  Southern  attention  should  be  called  to  the  subject  immediate- 
ly. When  Dr.  Bond  saw  proper  to  contradict  a  report,  which  he  said  was  in  circulation 
as  coming  from  him,  and  the  substance  of  which  was  that  a  plan  had  been  formed  by 
Northern  members  of  the  General  Conference,  to  force  the  South  into  secession,  &c. 
Dr.  .Smith,  supposing  he  might  allude  to  my  remarks  or  statements  to  the  Southern 
Delegations,  as  just  detailed,  replied,  in  substance,  without  consulting  me,  that  the 
statement  made  by  Dr.  Bond  had  not  been  made  to  the  Southern  Delegates  ;"  that  the 
two  statements  were  essentially  variant,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  disabuse  the  Con- 
ference of  a  wrong  impression,  by  informing  them  of  the  true  issue,  affirming  that  "it 
had  been  stated  over  and  over  again,  in  terms  that  led  to  the  conviction,  that  it  was  the 
purpose  of  many  in  the  Conference  to  pursue  measures,  which  must  necessarily  result 
in  a  division,  and  that  in  declaring  their  adhesion  to  these  measures,  they  had  used  lan- 
guage which  justly  entitled  them  to  a  disclaimer.  That  course  they  had  adopted  with 
Bishop  Andrew,  and  it  was  of  this  he  and  his  Southern  friends  justly  complained." 
This  challenge,  which  implicated  members  of  the  General  Conference  beyond  any  state- 
ment of  mine-,  was  not  met  by  any  one.  Dr.  Bond  said  that  with  this  position  he  had 


1.65 

nothing  to  do  ;  that  is,  with  my  position,  fairly  stated  by  Dr.  Smith,  at  a  time  and  un- 
der circumstances  when  the  evidence  in  the  case  could  have  been  had  in  a  few  minutes, 
Dr.  Bond  had  nothing  to  do.  Dr.  Smith  not  only  charged  before  the  General  Confer- 
ence all  that  I  had  before  the  Southern  Delegates,  but  went  further,  implicating  mem- 
bers of  the  body,  from  all  allusion  to  whom  I  had  carefully  abstained.  Why  was  not 
the  issue  of  Dr.  Smith  upon  my  statement  met?  The  fact  that  the  statement  of  Dr. 
Smith  was  not  challenged,  was,  under  the  circumstances,  a  public  admission  of  its 
truth.  Was  Dr.  Bond  under  no  obligation  to  attend  to  Dr.  Smith's  statement,  which  in 
fact  was  mine,  because  not  in  accordance. with  his?  If  not,  any  more  could  I  be  con- 
sidered as  under  obligation  to  attend  to  Dr.  Bond's,  knowing,  as  I  did,  that  I  had  never 
made  any  statement  of  the  kind,  and  especially  as  Dr.  Bond  had  not  charged  it  upon 
me"!  Not  entirely  satisfied,  however,  with  this  mode  of  settlement,  I  immediately  called 
on  Dr.  Bangs  and  Rev.  Mr.  Sehon,  both  of  whom  had  addressed  the  Conference  on  the 
subject,  and  enquired  of  them,  whether  they  had  any  allusion  to  me  in  their  remarks, 
and  also  whether  lliey  understood  Dr.  Bond  to  have?  They  both  promptly  and  expli- 
citly assured  me  they  had  none,  and  that  so  far  as  they,  knew  or  believed,  Dr.  Bond  had 
none.  I  then  went  to  the  Rev.  Jno.  A.  Collins,  the  friend  and  guest  of  Dr.  Bond,  and 
enquired  of  him  to  the  same  effect,  with  respect  to  Dr.  Bond,  when  with  equal  explicit- 
ness  he  assured  me  he  did  not  believe  he  had.  I  then  supposed  it  unnecessary  to  pay 
any  further  attention  to  the  subject,  and  thought  no  more  of  it,  until  from  motives  and 
for  purposes  about  which  I  am  not  disposed  to  speculate,  it  re-appeared  in  the  columns 
of  Dr.  Bond's  paper,  with  additional  features  of  distortion  and  misrepresentation. 

It  was  my  purpose  to  publish  early  on  this  subject,  after  the  General  Conference.  But 
numerous  friends,  North  and  South,  requested  me  to  forbear,  in  the  hope  that  some  ac- 
tion might  be  had  by  the  Northern  Conferences,  meeting  in  rapid  succession,  which 
might  tend  to  allay  excitement  and  prepare  the  way  for  an  adjustment  of  difficulties. 
I  therefore  determined  to  remain  silent  until  after  the  Kentucky  Conference.  A  serious 
indisposition  from  the  15th  of  September  until  the  1st  of  December,  rendered  me  incapable 
of  the  labor  of  preparing  for  publication.  Meanwhile,  the  subject  in  controversy  began 
to  assume  new  and  more  eventful  aspects,  in  the  Northern  division  of  the  Church,  and 
I  did  not  wish  to  meet  the  actual  party  position  of  the  North,  until  it  was  fully  and  fairly 
taken,  in  action  as  well  as  argument.  While,  therefo/e,  there  was  a  prospect  of  addi- 
tional light  on  the  subject,  I  was  unwilling  to  deprive  myself  of  the  advantage  of  it, 
by  premature  publication.  These  reasons  have  been  satisfactory  to  myself,  and  as  no 
one  else  has  any  rights  in  the  premises,  I  may,  of  course,  expect  them  to  be  to  others. 

I  promised  to  perform  the  task  "at  my  earliest  leisure,"  and  I  beg  to  assure  all  con- 
cerned, that  on  the  basis  of  that  promise,  I  could,  for  want  of  "leisure,"  have  postponed 
the  publication  to  a  much  later  period. 


, 


9  3  33 


1  3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


to  u  LU-URL 

DEC  1  7  19>9 


JAN     6  1970 


INTE 


E  THREE 


DEC  2    1970 


JAN  e 


jjjj£  -.fiV  1  «  1971 
1NTERLIBRARY  LOANS 


Three  weeks  from  date  of 


BAN    81877, 


RLIRR^PY    LOANS 


Jop.  1  - 


WEEKS  FROM  DATE  Ot  KLLtlPT 


JTUL251977 


URL 


! 
PR  13 


i, 


.••. 


2-1 


